ILLINOIS  HISTORICAL  SURVEY 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2012  with  funding  from 

University  of  Illinois  Urbana-Champaign 


http://www.archive.org/details/memorandumconcerOOchic 


628.09773    I  ^       , 

C43m  1  -AA-f 

COD.  3 


MEMORANDUM 

CONCERNING  THE  DRAINAGE  AND 
SEWERAGE  CONDITIONS  IN  CHICAGO 

AND  THE 

DIVERSION  OF  10,000  C.  F.  S.  FROM 
LAKE  MICHIGAN  AT  CHICAGO 


k 


ISSUED  BY 

THE  BOARD  OF  TRUSTEES 

OF 

THE  SANITARY  DISTRICT  OF  CHICAGO 


CHICAGO,  ILLINOIS 
DECEMBER.    1923 


jjJjyOlS  HIBTOBWAZ  SVBVBT 


5/5-7 


f 

o 


MEMORANDUM 

CONCERNING  THE  DRAINAGE  AND 
SEWERAGE  CONDITIONS  IN  CHICAGO 

AND  THE! 

DIVERSION  OF  10,000  C.  F.  S.  FROM 
LAKE  MICHIGAN  AT  CHICAGO 


k 


ISSUED  BY 

THE  BOARD  OF  TRUSTEES 

OF 

THE  SANITARY  DISTRICT  OF  CHICAGO 


CHICAGO,  ILLINOIS 
DECEMBER,    1923 


CONTENTS 

Page 

Preliminary  Statement '  3 

Need  of  Sewage  Disposal 3 

Organization  of  the  Sanitary  District 4 

The  Dilution  Project 5  to  13 

Canals  and  River  Improvement 6 

Sewers  and  Pumping  Stations 7 

Summary  of  Construction  Costs 10 

Additional  Expenditures  for  Navigation 11 

Operation  of  Dilution  Project 13 

Water  Power  at  Lockport 14 

Sewage  Treatment 15  to  25 

Experiments 15 

Construction  Program 16 

Des  Plaines  River  Project 17 

Calumet  Project :  .  18 

North  Side  Project ' 19 

Industrial  Wastes  Project 20 

West  Side  Project ' 21 

Southwest  Side  Project 22 

Miscellaneous  Projects 22 

Summary  of  Costs 23 

Dilution  required,  1923  to  1945 24 

Metering  of  Water  Supply 25 

Regulating  Works  for  Great  Lakes 25 

Miscellaneous  Work 27 

Flood  Run-off  from  Chicago  River  Drainage  Area 28 

Need  of  Diversion  at  Chicago 31 

Conclusion 33 

Appendix  A — Historical  Facts  Regarding  Diversion  at  Chicago.  35  to  51 

Appendix  B — Review  of  the  Withdrawal  of  Water  from  the  Great 

Lakes  System 53  to  82 

Appendix  C — Flood  Flow  in  Chicago  River 83  to  92 


PRELIMINARY  STATEMENT 

The   Sanitary   District   of   Chicago   is   seeking   specj 
Congressional  sanction  for  its  diversion  of   10,000   cubic 
feet  per  second  of  water  from  Lake  Michigan  at  Chicago. 

To  acquaint  the  public  in  general  with  the  facts  relative 
to  this  matter  the  Sanitary  District  is  presenting  this 
memorandum,  which  is  intended  to  describe  concisely  the 
drainage  and  Sanitary  conditions  in  Chicago  and  vicinity, 
and  to  demonstrate  the  need  of  the  diversion  mentioned. 
In  connection  with  this  memorandum  and  as  a  part  of  the 
same  is  an  Appendix  "A"  in  which  are  outlined  the  his- 
torical facts  preceding  the  organization  of  the  Sanitary 
District,  including  those  related  and  incident  to  its  growth 
and  development,  also  the  facts  leading  up  to  and  surround- 
ing the  creation  of  the  works  for  the  Chicago  diversion; 
the  facts  with  reference  to  the  issuance  of  the  original 
permit  for  the  opening  of  the  Alain  Channel  of  the 
Sanitary  District  and  the  limitation  upon  such  permit 
made  by  the  Secretary  of  War,  in  1903,  the  facts  lead- 
ing up  to  and  surrounding  the  making  of  the  Treaty 
between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  concern- 
ing Canadian  boundary  waters  1909-10;  and  the  effect 
of  the  Treat}^,  foreclosing  Canadian  interests  from  ob- 
jecting to  any  diversion  of  10,000  cubic  feet  per  second 
at  Chicago. 

NEED  OF  SEWAGE  DISPOSAL 

Since  1840,  when  Chicago  had  a  population  of  only 
4,470,  Lake  Michigan  has  been  the  source  of  the  municipal 
water  supply. 

3 


The  first  sewers  built  in  Chicago  were  constructed  in 
1856  to  drain  into  Lake  Michigan  either  directly  or  by  way 
of  the  Chicago  River.  From  that  time  until  the  organi- 
zation of  the  Sanitary  District  and  thereupon  the  construc- 
tion of  its  diversion  works,  the  same  general  policy  was 
followed  in  sewer  construction. 

The  rapid  growth  in  population  of  the  City  of  Chicago, 
accompanied  by  the  necessary  expansion  of  the  waterworks 
and  sewer  systems,  led  to  a  state  of  pollution  of  Chicago's 
water  supply  that  by  1885  menaced  the  health  of  every 
inhabitant.  The  annual  Typhoid  Fever  death  rate  was 
appallingly  high  and  epidemics  of  such  fever  were  frequent. 
I  The  Chicago  River  had  become  a  public  nuisance  of  not 
■;only  national  but  even  world  wide  fame.  At  that  time, 
Chicago  was  a  city  of  681,000  people  and  the  condition  of 
affairs  was  so  serious  as  to  require  an  immediate  solution 
of  the  problem  in  a  comprehensive  way. 

The  Illinois  and  Michigan  Canal,  completed  in  1848, 
and  constructed  pursuant  to  express  congressional  sanction 
by  act  of  Congress  passed  in  1827,  and  pursuant  to  the  act 
of  1836  of  the  General  Assembly  of  Illinois,  was  used  until 
the  opening  of  the  Drainage  Canal  to  furnish  a  partial 
outlet  for  the  sewage  of  Chicago.  This  Canal,  however, 
by  reason  of  the  smallness  of  its  capacity,  was  but  a  make- 
shift. 


ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  SANITARY  DISTRICT 

The  Sanitary  Project  was  developed  by  the  City  of 
Chicago  with  the  co-operation  of  the  State  Board  of  Health 
of  Illinois  and  a  joint  committee  of  the  Illinois  General 
Assembly  in  the  years  1885-1889.  To  study  and  report 
upon  the  problem  Chicago  created  the  Drainage  and  Water 
Supply  Commission  consisting  of  eminent  Civil  Engineers. 
Three  methods  of  the  solution  of  the  problem  of  disposal 

4 


of  the  sewage  of  the  Chicago  District  were  considered  by 
this  Commission :  First,  the  discharge  of  sewage  into  Lake 
Michigan  at  one  end  of  the  city  and  the  taking  of  water 
supply  from  the  Lake  at  the  other  extreme  end  of  the  city; 
Second,  the  disposal  of  sewage  on  land  by  intermittent 
filtration  over  a  vast  sewage  farm  (as  large  as  15,000  acres) ; 
Third,  the  discharge  of  sewage  into  the  Des  Plaines  River 
by  means  of  ship  canal,  and  the  resu'tant  disposal  by 
dilution.  The  third  method,  recommended  by  the  Com- 
mission, was  chosen  as  the  basis  of  the  Sanitary  District 
Act. 

Thereupon  the  Sanitary  District  of  Chicago  was  created 
by  act  of  the  Illinois  State  Legislature  May  29,  1889,  and 
the  validity  of  the  act  was  affirmed  by  the  State  Supreme 
Court  on  June  12,  1890.  Its  purpose  was  to  provide  a 
Main  Channel  or  outlet  and  necessary  adjuncts  to  divert 
the  sewage  of  Chicago  and  adjacent  towns  from  Lake 
Michigan,  thus  protecting  the  municipal  water  supply  from 
contamination  by  sewage.  To  dispose  of  sewage  b}r 
dilution  and  provide  an  outlet  into  the  Illinois  River,  the 
act  required  that  such  channel  should  be  made  of  such 
size  and  capacit}^  as  to  provide  a  minimum  dilution  of  3.33 
cubic  feet  per  second  for  every  1,000  people. 

Subsequent  amendments  to  the  Sanitary  District  Act, 
authorized  the  utilization  of  the  water  power  incidentally 
created  (1903);  and  require  the  construction  of  sewage 
treatment  works  to  supplement  dilution  of  sewage  (1921). 
Construction  work  performed  in  compliance  with  these 
amendments  will  be  discussed  in  proper  order  in  later 
sections  of  this  memorandum. 

THE  DILUTION  PROJECT 

In  the  design  and  construction  of  the  Main  Drainage 
Canal,  the  first  work  of  the  Sanitary  District,  consideration 
was  given  to  the  provisions  of  Section  23  of  the  Act  which 

5 


required  that  the  channel  should  have  a  "size  and  capacity 
to  maintain  a  continuous  flow  throughout  the  same  of  not 
less  than  600,000  cubic  feet  of  water  per  minute  with  a 
current  of  not  more  than  three  miles  per  hour."  In  sub- 
sequent design,  this  same  flow  of  10,000  cubic  feet  per 
second  has  been  used. 

For  the  disposal  of  sewage  by  dilution,  the  Sanitary 
District  has  constructed  the  following  channels: 

Main  Drainage  Canal,  twent}T-eight  miles  long  from  the 
Chicago  River  at  Robey  Street  to  the  Controlling  Works 
at  Lockport,  depth  24  feet,  minimum  width  160  feet;  work 
started  1892,  water  turned  in  January  2,  1900.  Work 
involved  diverting  Des  Plaines  River  over  a  stretch  of 
13  miles.  Flow  capacity  of  Main  Channel  approximately 
10,000  cubic  feet  per  second.    Cost  of  project  $27,357,668.27. 

Des  Plaines  River  Improvement,  the  widening  and 
deepening  of  the  Des  Plaines  River  from  the  Lockport 
Controlling  Works  south  for  six  miles  through  Joliet;  work 
started  1898,  completed  September,  1901.  Channel  de- 
signed to  carry  flow  of  25,000  cubic  feet  per  second,  the 
combined  flood  flow  of  both  the  Main  Channel  and  Des 
Plaines  River.     Cost  of  project  $2,333,571.72. 

Main  Channel  Extension,  four  miles  long,  constructed 
between  1903  and  1907,  from  the  Lockport  Controlling 
Works  to  the  Upper  Basin  in  Joliet,  to  concentrate  at  one 
point  34  feet  of  fall  in  the  water  of  the  Main  Channel  and 
utilize  the  potential  power  running  to  waste.  Dimensions 
and  capacity  same  as  Main  Channel.  Cost  of  project 
$3,167,003.05. 

Chicago  River  Improvement,  five  miles  of  the  South 
Branch  from  Lake  Street  to  Robey  Street,  widened  to  200 
feet  minimum  and  deepened  to  26  feet,  work  carried  on 
from  1897  to  1920;  more  than  two  miles  of  the  North 
Branch  from  Belmont  Avenue  to  Lawrence  Avenue  straight- 

6 


ened,  widened  and  deepened  between  1904  and  1907.  Cost 
of  project  $12,903,619.48.  The  Main  Branch  of  the 
Chicago  River  and  the  North  Branch  below  Belmont 
Avenue  have  been  improved  by  the  Federal  Government. 

North  Shore  Channel,  eight  miles  long,  from  Lake 
Michigan  at  Wilmette  to  the  North  Branch  of  the  Chicago 
•River  at  Lawrence  Avenue,  depth  13  feet,  width  80  feet, 
constructed  between  1907  and  1910;  flow  capacity  1,000 
cubic  feet  per  second.     Cost  of  project  $4,106,489.84. 

Calumet-Sag  Channel,  sixteen  miles  long  from  the 
Little  Calumet  River  near  Blue  Island  to  a  junction  with 
the  Main  Channel  at  Sag,  depth  20  feet,  minimum  width 
60  feet;  work  begun  1911,  completed  1922.  Flow  capacity 
2,000  cubic  feet  per  second  when  flow  in  upper  Main  Channel 
is  8,000  c.  f.  s.  with  total  flow  in  Main  Channel  below  Sag 
10,000  cubic  feet  per  second.    Cost  of  project  $14,035,529.28. 


SEWAGE  PUMPING  STATIONS 

In  addition  to  canal  construction  and  river  improvement, 
building  of  new  sewers  to  replace  old  sewers  draining  into 
Lake  Michigan  was  necessary.  Between  1898  and  1905 
the  City  of  Chicago  constructed  intercepting  sewers  along 
the  lake  front,  the  sewer  on  the  South  Side  leading  to  the 
Thirty-ninth  Street  Pumping  Station  and  the  sewer  on  the 
North  Side  leading  to  the  Lawrence  Avenue  Pumping 
Station,  both  stations  constructed  by  the  City  but  turned 
over  to  the  Sanitary  District  to  operate.  Flushing  pumps 
are  located  at  both  these  sewage  pumping  stations,  the  one 
at  Lawrence  Avenue  installed  by  the  City  to  aid  in  flushing 
the  North  Branch  of  the  River,  and  the  two  at  Thirty- 
ninth  Street  installed  by  the  Sanitary  District  to  flush  out 
the  South  Fork  of  the  South  Branch,  or  the  Stockyards 

7 


slip.     The  construction  cost  of  these  projects  to  the  Sanitary 
District  has  been: 

Thirty-ninth  Street  Pumping  Station.  .  .$754,885.51 

Lawrence  Avenue  Pumping  Station 49,755.42 

$804,640.93 

The  expenditures  of  the  City  of  Chicago  on  the  con- 
struction of  intercepting  sewers  along  the  lake  front  and 
on  the  sewage  pumping  stations  mentioned  above  have 
been  $6,706,804.37. 


AUXILIARY  SEWERS 

Certain  sewers  have  been  constructed  as  auxiliaries  of 
the  Main  Channel  to  improve  the  circulation  in  certain 
parts  of  the  Chicago  River.  Among  these  are  the  Stock 
Yards  sewer  and  the  West  Thirty-ninth  Street  conduit, 
built  at  a  cost  of  $240,108.84,  to  carry  the  sewage  of  Packing- 
town  direct  to  the  Main  Channel  instead  of  discharging 
into  the  Stock  Yards  Slip.  The  Thirty-ninth  Street 
Conduit  Extension,  now  under  construction,  $593,357.03 
having  been  expended  on  it,  with  an  estimate  of  approxi- 
mately $1,983,000.00  more  to  complete,  will  permit  the 
filling  in  of  the  Stock  Yards  Slip  thereby  eliminating  a 
practically  stagnant  arm  of  the  South  Fork  of  the  South 
Branch  of  the  River.  This  sewer  will  also  serve  as  a  part 
of  the  collecting  sewer  system  of  the  South-west  Side 
Sewage  Treatment  Project. 

MISCELLANEOUS  CONSTRUCTION 

Other  miscellaneous  construction  work,  such  as  small 
sewers,  work  on  the  LaGrange  and  Kampsville  Dams  in  the 
Illinois  River,  work  on  the  Des  Plaines  at  Hickory  Creek, 
certain  improvements  at  the  old  Bridgeport  Pumping  Plant 
of  the  I.  &  M.  Canal,  etc.,  has  cost  the  Sanitary  District 
$812,254.66. 

8 


NORTH  SHORE  SEWERS 

The  above  mentioned  projects  completed  the  drainage 
and  sewage  diversion  from  Lake  Michigan  within  the 
Chicago  City  Limits.  The  sewage  of  the  North  Shore 
Towns  was  diverted  from  Lake  Michigan  by  the  North 
Shore  Sewer,  constructed  1913  to  1916,  extending  from 
Glencoe  down  to  the  North  Shore  Channel  at  Wilmette; 
and  by  the  Evanston  sewer  and  pumping  station,  con- 
structed 1916  to  1921,  extending  along  the  Lake  Front  in 
Evanston  and  leading  back  to  the  North  Shore  Channel. 
These  sewers  and  the  pumping  station,  though  classed  here 
as  a  part  of  the  Dilution  Project,  are  equally  a  part  of  the 
North  Side  Sewage  Treatment  Project,  mentioned  later. 
They  are  now  serving  to  drain  sewage  into  the  North  Shore 
Channel.  Upon  the  completion  of  the  North  Side  Sewage 
Treatment  Plant  in  1928  they  will  drain  into  the  Plant. 
The  cost  of  these  projects  has  been: 

North  Shore  Sewer $    690,376.62 

Evanston  Sewer 1,251,786.06 

Evanston  Pumping  Station.  .777 511,833.87 

$2,453,996.55 

In  the  design  of  intercepting  sewers  and  channels  in  the 
Dilution  Project,  the  idea  has  been  kept  in  mind  that 
ultimately  sewage  treatment  would  be  required  over  practi- 
cally the  entire  District  to  supplement  disposal  by  dilution. 
Accordingly  many  of  the  sewers  which  have  been  designed 
as  tributaries  of  the  canals  in  the  dilution  scheme  will  be 
used  as  collecting  sewers  in  the  Treatment  Projects.  The 
Calumet,  Evanston  and  North  Shore  Sewers  are  examples 
of  sewers  which  will  have  a  double  use.  In  this  memoran- 
dum all  structures  are  classified  according  to  their  present 
use.  Even  the  canals  will  serve  their  part  in  the  Treatment 
Projects  as  effluent  channels  diverting  the  effluent  from  the 
plants  away  from  Lake  Michigan  at  all  times. 

9 


SUMMARY  OF  CONSTRUCTION  COSTS 

This  concludes  the  construction  program  of  the  Sanitary 
District  as  regards  the  disposal  of  sewage  by  dilution.  Its 
cost  may  be  summarized  as: 

Main  Drainage  Canal $27,357,668.27 

Des  Plaines  River  Improvement 2,333,571.72 

Main  Channel  Extension 3,167,003.05 

Chicago  River  Improvement 12,903,619.48 

North  Shore  Channel 4,106,489.84 

Calumet-Sag  Channel 14,035,529.28 

Sewage  Pumping  Stations 804,640.93 

Auxiliary  Sewers 833,465.87 

Miscellaneous  Construction 812,254.66 

North  Shore  Sewers 2,453,996.55 

Bare  Construction  Cost $68,808,239.65 

Administration,  legal  expense,  clerical 

expense,  damages,  etc 5,765,404.33 

Interest  on  bonds  for  construction. . . .  16,313,221.63 

Expenditures  by  City  of  Chicago 6,706,804.37 

Total : $97,593,669.98 

In  addition  to  the  $97,593,669.98  expended  for  CON- 
STRUCTION the  Sanitary  District  has  expended  some 
$11,434,857.95  on  maintenance,  administration  and  opera- 
tion bringing  the  total  expenditures  on  account  of  the  Dilu- 
tion Project  to  well  over  one  hundred  millions  of  dollars. 

As  a  result  of  this  expenditure,  there  is  available  a 
system  of  canals  and  sewers  which  will  for  3b5  days  out  of 
every  year  keep  the  sewage  of  the  Chicago  District  out  of 
Lake  Michigan,  the  source  of  the  municipal  water  supply. 
This  system,  if  worked  up  to  its  designed  capacity  of  10,000 
cubic  feet  per  second  of  flow,  will,  at  the  rate  of  dilution 
required  by  the  State  law,  dispose  of  the  sewage  of  3,000,000 
people. 

10 


Exhibit  A  is  a  map  showing  in  red  the  various  works 
constructed  for  the  Dilution  Project. 

The  diversion  works  as  now  constructed  provide  for  a 
complete  diversion  from  Lake  Michigan  of  all  the  sewage 
and  drainage,  and  of  10,000  cubic  feet  per  second  of  water 
in  the  following  manner:  6,250  c.  f.  s,  direct  from  Lake 
Michigan  through  the  Chicago  River  to  the  junction  of 
the  south  and  north  branches.  At  this  point  the  diversion 
is  augmented  by  1J30  c.  f.  s.  coming  in  from  the  North 
Branch  from  two  diversion  sources — Lawrence  Avenue 
Pumping  Station  at  Lawrence  Avenue,  750  c.  f.  s.  and  the 
North  Shore  Channel  terminating  at  the  lake  shore  in 
Wilmette,  1,000  c.  f.  s.  The  8,000  c.  f.  s.  diversion  then 
proceeds  along  the  South  Branch  to  the  South  Fork  where 
it  is  augmented  by  2,000  c.  f.  s.  diversion  at  the  39th  Street 
Pumping  Station,  making  a  total  of  10,000  cubic  feet  per 
second.  The  Calumet-Sag  Channel  has  a  capacity  of  2,000 
cubic  feet  per  second  and  enters  the  Main  Channel  at  Sag, 
Illinois,  a  number  of  miles  south  and  west  of  the  northern 
terminus  of  the  Main  Channel.  It  is  designed  to  divert 
the  sewage  of  the  southern  section  and  to  decrease  the 
load  on  the  other  diversions  and  thus  decrease  the  current 
in  the  Chicago  River,  but  it  is  not  designed  to  increase 
the  total  diversions  over  the  10,000  cubic  feet  per  second. 

ADDITIONAL    EXPENDITURES    FOR    NAVIGATION. 

The  Main  Drainage  Canal  was  constructed  as  a  Sanitary 
and  Ship  Canal  and  the  Chicago  River  was  improved  in 
such  a  way  as  to  make  it  navigable  to  ships  plying  the 
Great  Lakes.  Navigation  features  added  considerably  to 
the  cost  of  the  Calumet-Sag  Channel.  A  study  of  the 
construction  costs  of  the  Dilution  Project  indicates  that  if 
the  channels  had  all  been  constructed  of  their  present  flow 
capacities,  with  the  same  ultimate  flow  capacity  of  10,000 
c.  f.  s.  for  the  main  outlet,  with  navigation  features  omitted, 
there  could  have  been  effected  a  saving  of  $8,500,000.00. 

li 


This  is  the  amount  which  the  Sanitary  District  has 
contributed  to  the  cost  of  a  navigable  waterway  which  will 
some  day  be  completed  from  the  Great  Lakes  to  the  Gulf  of 
Mexico. 

If  in  the  beginning  the  amount  of  diversion  from  Lake 
Michigan  had  been  determined  and  fixed  at  4,167  c.  f.  s. 
and  the  Sanitary  District  had  constructed  the  various 
branches  of  the  Dilution  Project  as  they  were  built  but  of  a 
total  ultimate  capacity  of  4,167  c.  f.  s.  instead  of  10,000 
c.  f.  s.,  with  no  navigation  features,  there  could  have  been 
effected  a  saving  of  $25,300,000.00.  This  is  the  amount  the 
Sanitary  District  has  expended  for  the  benefit  of  navigation 
and  a  greater  diversion  than  4,167  c.  f.  s. 

If  in  the  beginning  the  amount  of  diversion  from  Lake 
Michigan  had  been  determined  and  fixed  at  4,167  c.  f.  s. 
and  the  Sanitary  District  had  constructed  a  Dilution 
Project  with  an  outlet  capacity  of  only  4,167  c.  f.  s.,  omit- 
ting the  auxiliary  channels  and  all  navigation  features, 
there  could  have  been  effected  a  saving  of  approximately 
$37,000,000.00. 

If  the  diversion  from  Lake  Michigan  should  be  fixed 
at  4,167  c.  f.  s.  and  a  flow  of  this  amount  should  not  be 
exceeded  in  the  Drainage  Canal,  it  would  require  only  a  few 
years  for  silting  to  take  place  in  the  Main  Drainage  Canal, 
Calumet-Sag  Channel  and  the  Chicago  River  to  such  an 
extent  that  the  whole  system  would  have  a  capacity  of  only 
4,167  c.  f.  s.  instead  of  10,000  c.  f.  s.  as  at  present.  Under 
such  a  condition,  when  the  necessity  would  arise  to  flow 
more  than  4,167  c.  f.  s.  to  dispose  of  flood  waters,  it  would  be 
impossible  to  flow  a  sufficient  amount  because  of  lack  of 
capacity.  The  deposits  in  the  channel  would  be  formed 
from  sludge,  and  years  of  experience  on  the  Drainage  Canal 
indicate  that  compacted  sludge  will  not  scour. 

It  is  pertinent  to  state  that  the  diversion  from  Lake 
Michigan  at  Chicago  benefits  navigation  in  the  Mississippi 

12 


<n 

<M 

Oi 

l> 

O 

05 

TjH 

<N 

CO 

00 

iO 

IC 

i 

o 

^ 

(N* 

cj 

id 

ci 

CQ 

CQ 

CC 

CC 

CC 

T— 1 

(M 

05 

T— 1 

CT> 

T— 1 

i— 1 

-t 

^ 

CO 

CC 

»q 

c: 

q 

l> 

q 

1 

T— 1 

-V 

CC 

iC 

d 

t^ 

TjH 

id 

i> 

d 

l> 

ci 

T— 1 

rH 

05 

to 
Q 

i—l 

O 

rfH 

HH 

fc 

t— ( 

CO 

1— 1 

CQ 

q 

CC 

q 

(M 

"* 

r— 

,_, 

o 

Ph 

i 

o 

1—1 
i— I 

t^ 

OS 

cs 

GC 

cq 

Oi 

CC 

r|H 

OC 

CC 

d 

H 

« 

(N 

i-H 

CQ 

r^ 

r-i 

1— 

r- 

i— i 

< 

o 

g 

Oi 

Ph 

H 

o 

o 

ft 

Ph" 

i 

to 
o 

T— 1 

GO 

CQ 

CC 

i— J 

q 

CC 

00 

c 

00 

CC 

T— 

r— 
CC 

CC 

CC 

o 

8 

CC 

i—l 

^H 

CQ 

(M 

r- 

"* 

r- 

Tt- 

CQ 

r- 

© 

H 

^H 

o 

o 

O 
OS 

00 

q 

GC 

q 

«* 

q 

CQ 

c 

CQ 

C 

CI 

« 

I 

o 
o 

CC 

CO 

CC 

CQ 

l> 

i> 

d 

o: 

CC 

CC 

d 

s 

CC 

<N 

*c 

CQ 

rH 

i— i 

^ 

CC 

CC 

CC 

(M 

Ph 

« 

OS 

W 

1—1 

3 

<1 

05 

00 

T— 1 

q 

O 

CC 

CQ 

q 

TjH 

oc 

T^ 

00 

OC 

cq 

as 

CC 

<N 

cq 

a 

i> 

l> 

»o 

d 

^ 

i— 

CO 

H 

cc 

CC 

CC 

rH 

r— 

r* 

-^ 

(M 

CC 

CC 

CC 

H 

GO 

<d 

W 

*tf 

q 

o> 

rt 

GO 

i—i 

c 

^ 

CC 

^ 

C 

CC 

CO 

r}- 

CQ 

^t 

(M 

i 

o 

OS 

GO 
i—l 

-+ 

<N 

c 

CC 

CC 

r- 

c 

OC 

CC 

ir. 

ci 

£ 

^ 

CC 

ir. 

<* 

CC 

CQ 

io 

^1" 

00 

^ 

Oi 

w 

pH 

Q 

£ 

CC 

o 

i— 

oc 

t^ 

OC 

O: 

l> 

iO 

o 

CJ 

CC 

"* 

I> 

Tf 

tJ- 

l> 

C3: 

t^ 

o 

t— < 

GC 

q 

GC 

CC 

T— 

c 

I> 

OC 

ir: 

t^ 

O 

5° 

CC 

GC 

CC 

CC 

I> 

c 

CC 

CQ 

i> 

rH* 

CC 

^ 

a 

a: 

iC 

<N 

CQ 

l> 

CC 

o 

l> 

l> 

t^ 

a 

^ 

CC 

OC 

I> 

^ 

l> 

P-, 

o 
Ph 

IT. 

r— 

CO? 

H 

a 

#a 

"-P 

C 

K 

p 

a 

6 

a 
c 

PC 

i          C 
I        PC 

p 

a 
> 

C 

i      t 

)     P 

a 
a 
h* 
P 

1 

i   i 

,     1 

1 
1 

'     1 

4               J/ 

J 

-H 

c 

•   t 

p 

1    £ 

h 

H 

a 
> 
< 

o     1 
i    .s 

rC 

!      C 

t 

-   CQ 


X 


Valley.  A  flow  of  10,000  c.  f.  s.  through  the  Drainage 
Canal  will  not  only  raise  the  low  water  stage  of  the  Illinois 
River  but  will  raise  the  low  water  stage  of  the  Mississippi 
River  between  St.  Louis  and  Cairo  approximately  one 
and  one-half  feet.  To  increase  and  maintain  the  low  water 
depth  of  the  Mississippi  River  at  this  place  by  any  other 
means  would  cost  the  Federal  Government  many  millions 
of  dollars. 

OPERATION  OF  DILUTION  PROJECT 

The  results  of  the  operation  of  the  Dilution  Project 
have  been  all  that  could  be  expected.  Water  borne  diseases 
have  been  practically  eliminated  in  Chicago.  The  death 
rate  from  Typhoid  Fever  is  the  best  measure  of  these  results,  j 
The  rate  in  Chicago  has  declined  from  a  maximum  of  172.0 
per  100,000  population  in  1891  to  1.0  per  100,000  population 
in  1922.  Credit  for  the  total  decrease  in  Typhoid  Fever 
death  rate  should  not  be  given  entirely  to  the  operation  of 
the  Dilution  Project  or  the  Drainage  Canal.  Up  to  date 
sanitary  science  has  lessened  the  rate  in  all  cities.  By  the 
amount  the  Chicago  rate  has  decreased  more  than  the  rate 
of  other  large  cities,  can  the  effect  of  the  Dilution  Project 
be  measured.  Exhibit  B  is  a  tabulation  of  statistics  of 
the  Typhoid  Fever  death  rates  in  Chicago  and  nine  other 
large  cities,  three  of  which  are  adjacent  to  the  Great  Lakes. 
These  figures  indicate  that  the  average  yearly  death  rate 
per  100,000  population  for  the  ten  year  period  1890  to  1899 
inclusive  (the  ten  years  immediately  preceding  the  opening 
of  the  Drainage  Canal)  was  64.4  for  Chicago  and  38.5  for 
the  group  of  nine  (9)  cities,  Baltimore,  Boston,  Cleveland, 
Detroit,  Milwaukee,  New  York,  Philadelphia,  St.  Louis  and 
Washington.  The  average  yearly  rate  for  the  past  three  ^ 
years,  1920  to  1922,  inclusive,  was  1.1  for  Chicago  and  3.5  W*b"  q 
for  the  group  of  nine  (9)  cities.  Chicago's  rate  is  now  1.7  *** 
per  cent  of  what  it  was  prior  to  1900.  The  average  rate  of 
nine  other  large  cities  is  now  9.1  per  cent  of  what  it  was 
prior  to  1900. 

13 


WATER  POWER  AT  LOCKPORT 

In  the  four  mile  reach  below  the  Lockport  Controlling 
Works  the  water  flowing  from  the  Main  Channel  dropped 
approximately  34  feet.     Much  potential  power  was  running 
to  waste  during  the  first  few  years  of  operation  of  the  canal. 
The  Sanitary  District  Act  was  amended  in  1903  further 
authorizing  the  development  of  this  power  and  the  furnish- 
ing of  the  energy  generated  therefrom  to  municipalities 
within  the  District.     Between  1904  and  1907,  the  Main 
Drainage  Canal  was  extended  over  this  four  mile  reach 
the  fall  concentrated  in  one  spot  and  a  power  house  installed 
for  the  development  of  water  power.     The  cost  of  this 
power  plant  was  $1,395,712.95.  Electric  current  is  generated 
and  transmitted  to  Chicago  where  it  is  used  in  lighting 
streets,  parks  and  boulevards  in  Chicago  and  its  suburbs 
Much  of  the  current  is  used  by  the  Sanitary  District  itselt 
in  the  operation  of  the  electrically  driven  sewage  pumping 
stations  and  the  machinery  in  the  sewage  treatment  plants. 

The  theoretical  power  at  Lockport  with  a  34  ft.  head 
and  a  flow  of  the  designed  capacity  of  the  Mam  Channel, 
10  000  c  f  s  ,  making  allowance  for  water  for  lockage  and  to 
regulate  flow,  is  approximately  36,000  h.  p.  or  27,000  k.  w 
With  an  overall  efficiency  of  80  percent,  the  possible  output 
would  be  21,600  k.  w.  The  actual  output  of  this  plant  for 
the  past  ten  years  has  been 

1913      98,000,000  k.  w.  h. 

1914  107,000,000  k.  w.  h. 

X915-    110,000,000  k.  w.  h. 

X916    113,000,000  k.  w.  h. 

1917  119,000,000  k.  w.  h. 

t  i9i8 120,000,000  k.  w.  h. 

1919' ' 126,000,000  k.  w.  h. 

1920     121,000,000  k.  w.  h. 

1921 117,000,000  k.  w.  h. 

1922 122,551,8,00  k.  w.  h. 

14 


The  output  of  the  Commonwealth  Edison  Company, 
operating  within  the  Chicago  City  Limits,  for  the  year  1922 
was  2,225,443,000  k.  w.  h.  with  a  peak  load  of  600,000  k.  w. 

The  water  power  is  merely  a  by-product  and  it  conserves 
something  that  otherwise  would  be  wasted.  The  power  is 
used  in  operating  the  plants  of  the  Sanitary  District  and  for 
furnishing  street  lights  to  municipalities  at  cost.  The  small 
amount  of  day  load  originally  sold  to  commercial  consumers 
to  balance  the  load  curve  is  now  being  dropped  as  rapidly  as 
possible,  the  Sanitary  District  using  this  current  in  its  own 
plants.  No  water  has  ever  been  used  for  power  that  was 
not  diverted  and  needed  for  dilution  of  sewage  according  to 
the  fixed  statutory  ratio  of  20;000  cubic  feet  per  minute  for 
each  100,000  of  population. 

SEWAGE  TREATMENT 
Experiments 

It  has  long  been  recognized  by  the  Sanitary  District 
that,  in  a  city  growing  as  is  Chicago,  a  limit  would  be  reached 
beyond  which  it  would  not  be  feasible  to  dispose  of  sewage 
entirely  by  dilution.  The  capacity  of  all  the  channels  would 
be  taxed  and  the  amount  of  water  that  could  be  withdrawn 
from  Lake  Michigan  for  sewage  dilution  would  be  limited. 
Accordingly  as  far  back  as  1908  a  thorough  study  of  methods 
of  sewage  treatment,  other  than  dilution,  was  begun.  A 
laboratory  was  established  at  Thirty-ninth  Street  and 
experts  were  employed  for  this  study  which  is  still  in 
progress.  Experimental  Sewage  Testing  Stations  have 
been  built  and  operated;  at  Thirty-ninth  Street  on  domestic 
sewage  from  1908  to  1911;  at  the  Stock  Yards  on  its  special 
trade  wastes  from  1912  to  1914,  and  on  the  activated  sludge 
process  from  1915  to  1918;  along  the  North  Branch  on 
tannery  wastes  1919  to  1922;  and  at  Argo  on  the  special 
wastes  of  the  Corn  Products  Company  from  1920  to  date. 
Nothing  has  been  overlooked  which  would  give  the  Sanitary 
District  the  best  and  most  up  to  date  information  on  sewage 

15 


disposal.     The  cost  of  these  studies  up  to  January  1,  1923, 
has  been  $256,967.43. 

The  time  devoted  to  the  study  and  investigation  of 
sewage  treatment  was  absolutely  necessary  to  precede  the 
initiation  b}r  the  Sanitary  District  of  its  vast  and  expensive 
sewage  treatment  program.  It  would  have  been  the  part  of 
folly  for  the  Sanitary  District  to  have  entered  upon  a  plan 
for  the  disposal  of  sewage  by  artificial  treatment  supplemen- 
tary to  the  diversion  works  without  having  first  made  a 
complete  and  exhaustive  study.  The  art  of  sewage  disposal 
has  been  for  a  great  many  years  in  a  state  of  continuing 
change.  Almost  as  soon  as  plans  for  sewage  disposal  had 
been  adopted,  they  were  discarded  as  obsolete  for  some 
other  plan.  The  Imhoff  tanks  and  sprinkler  filter  method 
is  not  perfect  and  at  times  causes  nuisances  due  to  odors. 
In  places  it  has  given  way  to  the  activated  sludge  process. 
The  popularity  of  the  activated  sludge  process  is  apparently 
waning  due  to  difficulties  in  disposing  of  the  sludge  and 
because  of  cost  of  operation  and  other  things. 

Construction  Program 

As  a  result  of  the  studies  of  sewage  treatment,  the 
Board  of  Trustees  of  the  Sanitary  District,  by  ordinance 
passed  August  7,  1919,  adopted  a  program  and  project 
for  the  construction  of  artificial  sewage  treatment  plants 
to  be  operated  supplementary  to  its  sewage,  drainage  and 
water  diversion  works.  This  program  provided  for  the 
construction  each  year  of  certain  plants  so  that  at  the 
end  of  twenty-five  years  only  half  the  amount  of  sewage 
and  wastes  then  passing  through  the  Drainage  Canal  would 
be  discharged  into  the  Desplaines  River.  The  Sanitary 
District  has  been  divided  into  six  divisions  and  six  major 
treatment  projects  have  been  outlined,  as  shown  on  the 
Exhibit  C.  A  seventh  division  includes  miscellaneous 
small  projects  for  outlying  towns  and  villages.  These 
projects  are  listed  in  the  order  in  which  their  construction 

16 


r 

1 

1    W  ■ 

^^11  ill! 

£  <S:  £  £  £  3  ^  <$  <$ 


- 

1919 

1920 

1921 

1922 

17,763.44 

$8,810.85 

$36,014.98 

$10,890.23 

§9,374.03 

267,446.85 

374,092.00 

578,097.09 

03,291.79 

127,111.66 

1,963.07 

572.98 

1,690.85 

201,409.76 

591,329.99 

1,094.50 

260,656.84 

2,992,316.07 

2,866,606.11 

37,714.55 

703,526.43 

551,004.06 

877,825.73 

§3,450.08 

595,292.32 

60,042.44 

2,333.74 

222,220.04 

677,345.16 

264,893.39 

4,649.25 

846.82 

281,099.77 

23,294.78 

56,552.46 

1,941,747.60 

104.76 

1,415.00 

27,802.78 

20,286.84 

2,342.54 

84.26 

1,942.10 

0,491.17 

$2,208,457.68 

$5,238,831.56 

$7,160,551.58 

Exhib 

it"D" 

THE  SANITARY  DISTRICT  OF  CHICAGO 
EXPENDITURES  ON  SEWAGE  TREATMENT  PROJECTS  TO  DECEMBER  31,  1922 

PROJECT 

Project 
Total 

1907 

1908 

1909                  1910 

1911 

1912 

1913 

1914 

19,5 

,9,0 

1917 

,9,8 

,9,9 

1020 

1021 

[g  a 

Sanitary  Improvements,  etc 

t        ,6,987    a 

$25,015  Mi      J22.752.59 

SI  11.9811   24 

S14.3IIS   79 

$17, Hi?  64 

$19,19(1  91 

Si:;. sul   ,,i 

$68,47!  72 

$3,597.75 

$2.091. 1)5 

,7,703    1! 

$8,810.85 

136,01 1  os 

$10,800  23 

Total 

S     266,967.43 

: 



I.     Desplaines  River  Treatment  Projec:: 

Treatment  Plant 

1,441,838.01 

26,704.00 

6,139.04 

1 89,374. 03 

207,440.85 

974,092  00 

578,097    09 

ark  Sewer 

- 

'•"29"8 

127,111  00 

1,600.85 

1,003.07 

672.08 

Total, 

2,900,053.47 

II.     Calumet  Sewage  Treatment  Project: 

Treating  Plant  and  Connecting  Conduit 

6,124,866.62 

4,193.10 

1,094.50 

2011.050    SI 

i 

1,:-,C9   III 

2,378.84 

2,305.83 

404.83 

0,930.51 

59,361.84 

599.X29   7.1 

1  085,998   119 

970,489.00 

187,714.55 

703.5211    111 

551.0 1 

1.499.402.02 

250.00 

2,400.30 

4,678.94 

17.433.73 

133,460.41 

on.4iO.08 

.-,II.-,,J92     :  ! 

00,012    II 

Calumet  Power  Plant 

1,104,458.59 



222,2211  111 

077,345.16 

204,803.39 

95th  Street  Pumping  Station 

5.496.07 



1,0111   25 

846.82 

Total, 

13,843  023.01 

III.     North  Side  Sewage  Treatment  Project: 
North  Side  Treatment  Plant.  .  . 

304,394.65 

281, 77 

23,20  1    7S 

North  Side  Sewers 

1.998,300.06 



"        " 

60,652.40 

1,941,747.00 

Niles  Center  Sewers 

25,362.93 

319.27 

1,7,4  .53 

22,921.09 

303.28 

■ 



Total, 

2,328,057.54 

V.     West  Side  Sewage  Treatment  Project: 

283,370.50 

132.28 

10  00 

347.93 

58,572.85 

33,571.99 

139,439. St. 

28,707.52 

4,922.35 

16,359.72 

1,415  on 

Total, 

283,379.60 

VII.     Miscellaneous  Treatment  Plants  and  Sewers: 
Morton  Grove 

05.964.31 

143.07 

9,990.11 

2.8.2.83 

1,084.30 

810.89 

27,802.78 

20,280.84 

2,3  12   51 

84.26 

Small  Plants    

1.942.10 



1,042.10 

Total. 

C7.900.41 

119.079,988.20 

119,670,988  26 

,32.28 

S2.'i,02.-,  i;u  1   J24.070.40 

$13,359.08 

$75,247.47 

$51,045.84 

$178,827.01) 

$804,0,7.27 

11,108,427.71 

,1,150,710.0s 

$1,010,491.17 

15,238,831.  M 

17,1011,551    58 

Exhibit  "D 


August  13,  1923. 


1939 


1940 


1941  1942  to  1945 


-- 


To 


$1,500,000 
600,000 


$1,300,000 
500,000 


900,000 


1,200,000 


$1,400,000 
1,460.000 


$1,450,000  per  year 
1,460,000  per  year 


1D0 


600,000 


600,000 


800,000 


800,000  per  year 


)0; 

75  • 


r5 


00      $3,000,000      $3,600,000       $3,660,000      $3,710,000  per  year 


Exhibit  "E" 


THE  SANITARY  DISTRICT  OF  CHICAGO 
FUTURE  CONSTRUCTION  SCHEDULE 

\i  01    i  13,  1923. 

PROJECT 

KMIniuu 

''c^1 

'»» 

im 

.0=0 

.080 

987 

1088 

.080 

.030 

.03. 

.03, 

.033 

.03, 

.030 

.030 

,037 

,....« 

.03. 

.040 

.0.1 

,          !"<*""-    R""    '""""""    F"""' 

'  BB. 

.,..20:000. 

•'iWiM- 

'  iso'ooo 

:»'°b;66°: 

1 



1 

II    UI1IMIUU 

1 

'  'z'E 

■         0  043.000 

.'^,, 

1  j  -.„,,  oi 

ooo.ooo 

j  MuiMitiu 

?:::::!:-:::::: 

i:SSS:8SS 

8;:.io88 

3I8S:888 

,v  "liSiill^S™^ 

i  ■;;;;"■'» 

!§§:§§§ 

l§§:§§§ 

-.)0.000 

2  600.666 

,-.„„,„„ 

i    600,00  ■ 

TolBl. 

1  .Mi  mill 

V 

V.       «,„Si,„S„«,Tm,.:„|S,„: 

;o.|oo,i| 

"obd'o'bo 

I* "> 

'■ !!!"! ""," 

'!  -mi!"!!! 

■:■::::;::::;: 

'!  :',",', "'.'," 

']■;;;; ;;;;;; 

'iskIi 

11. Mm  iiiiii 

•  i.:iiiii. 

:      ■ , 

VI.       S,.„,h»-.l    S..I, cl. 

U3 

...20°:0°°. 

...00.0'000. 



'  V  job.boo- 

•!.:::;;:= 

,  .    :,'. 

Total. 

■ 

-sii  ' 

01.000 

""'■ 

■    iob.bdo 

^:°°°: 

•,..000 

.50.MJ  p*-  W 

Totol. 

|      13.010.000 

111 

400'°.0Q 

nm.omi 

':::"**•?*. 

.'f60-.66.0 

If 

••■job.boo 

.'  ™:T 

TOTAL   

1100.388,1 

10 

..„0.a8,.000 

,S.os8,„o 

.,0,0.000 

.,480.000 

.,3,0,00 

S.-.-.fI.M0 

,,47,„„„ 

.,000.000 

.4,00.000 

..,00,00 

,,.,00,00 

,3,00,00 

.3,00,„0 

MM« 

" ■•■■ 

MUM 

.3,00,00 

H.TIMWl-1- 

£xMM*  "£" 

,  POPULATION, 

ETC. 

l  36   CENTS   NET;   ALL   SUBSEQUENT 

MEMORANDA 

Year 

Assessed  Valuation 

Bonds 

Total 

Per 
Capita 

Maximum 
Capacity 

3% 
(13) 

Outstanding 
January 

(11) 

(12) 

(14) 

$1,915,000,000 

$596 

$53,500,000 

$27,300,000 

1923 

1,965,000,000 

598 

57,450,000 

33,004,000 

1924 

2,015,000,000 

600 

58,950,000 

36,474,000 

1925 

2,065,000,000 

603 

60,450,000 

40,744,000 

1926 

2,115,000,000 

605 

61,950,000 

44,720,000 

1927 

2,170,000,000 

608 

63,450,000 

50,046,000 

1928 

2,225,000,000 

611 

65,100,000 

52,970,000 

1929 

2,280,000,000 

615 

66,750,000 

56,544,000 

1930 

2,345,000,000 

620 

68,400,000 

58,843,000 

1931 

2,400,000,000 

623 

70,350,000 

60,370,000 

1932 

2,460,000,000 

627 

72,000,000 

61,700,000 

1933 

2,520,000,000 

630 

73,800,000 

63,230,000 

1934 

2,580,000,000 

634 

75,600,000 

65,460,000 

1935 

2,645,000,000 

639 

77,400,000 

67,340,000 

1930 

2,710,000,000 

643 

79,350,000 

68,970,000 

1937 

2,780,000,000 

650 

81,300,000 

71,250,000 

1938 

2,850,000,000 

654 

83,400,000 

72,280,000 

1939 

2,920,000,000 

660 

85,500,000 

73,960,000 

1940 

2,990,000,000 

665 

87,600,000 

75,340,000 

1941 

3,065,000,000 

671 

89,700,000 

76,350,000 

1942 

3,140,000,000 

677 

91,950,000 

78,350,000 

1943 

3,220,000,000 

683 

94,200,000 

79,050,000 

1944 

3,300,000,000 

690 

96,600,000 

80,750,000 

1945 

$99,000,000 

$81,300,000 

1946 

5106,322,000                      / 
120,400,000 um      I 

ad  Opr 

« 

57,178,680 

p 

$283,900,680 

E: 

Khibit 

"F" 

THE  SANITARY  DISTRICT  OF  CHICAGO 

REVISED  CONSTRUCTION  PROGRAM 

STATEMENT  ESTIMATINC  REVENUE  FROM  TAXES  AND  BONDS  AND  COSTS,  VALUES 

POPULATION 

ETC. 

BASIS:     1923  AND  1924 

COLLECTIONS   OH  A   TAMNG   RATE    OF   40    CENTS   PER   S100 

VALUATION 

GROSS,    OB 

36  CENTS  NET 

;  ALL   SUBSEQUENT 

CO 

LLECT10NS   AT    THE    RATE    OF    45    CENTS    GROSS,    OR   40;  i    CENTS    NET. 

RECEIPTS 

Liabilities 

NEW  CONSTRUCTION 

MEMORANDA 

Year 

P«OM 

Redemp- 

im's Main- 

Total 

B--CES 

COKSTRUC- 

Popula- 

■    Assessed  Valuation 

Bonds 

Per 

Maximum 

°YaSnToAarT° 

Tax 

1'  ]      ll'M>. 

OH  1-2  AND  7-8 

tion 

iOTBisi 

i  'ratios 

or  4  5-6 

Program 

Total 

<3if5 

(1) 

(2)        5 

(3) 

(4) 

(6) 

m 

(8) 

(9) 

(10) 

(11) 

(12) 

(14) 

$     0  4'>5  000 

-'      8,0011,1100 

-   14.12.5,000 

i     2.290,000 

$     1,301     vi 

:  100,000 

J     6,704,580 

8   7.72(1.120 

8     5.582,00(1 

3,213,000 

$1,915,000,000 

$596 

$53,500,000 

827,200,000 

1923 

12,90( 

1100 

1,005, 000,0(10 

1  1.05) 

1)00 

2, 780, OOO 

1,60  

7,31.8.040 

7,42.5,000 

8,35,8,(100 

2.01.5,(100,01)0 

000 

:;.))24,O00 

l.W.K.o 

2.1(10,01)0 

7,350,000 

2,065,000,00(1 

603 

9,000,000 

17, 8.51 

111)11 

2.1174,000 

1,91.  -i» 

5(10,01  III 

S.2i;o.5l)0 

7,575,000 

8,407.(1110 

2.115,000,000 

605 

01 

"5o  

4  1,,  20. 

1027 



7. ), 

15,5.51 

000 

2,170,000,000 

608 

Hi 

150.000 

5(1,1 144,.  OOO 

102.8 

1  929 

.8.(100,1)1 10 

10,8)11 

1 

4. 120,0110 

2.225,000,000 

611 

o. 

.ooo 

5'', 0,0, 

1020 

2.280,11011,1)110 

615 

61 

...o.ooo 

50.5  11,001) 

'.1,25(1,01)11 

li. .000 

15.251 



1,478,00(1 

2.53    '.20 

1,1,(1(1.1100 

2,043,880 

1, 000.000 

5,7.82,0(10 

2,345,000,000 

620 

tit 

.ooo 

58,8  13,0011 

1931 

•J, .vjn.ooo 

o.ooo.ooo 

15,501 



4.0,0.000 

2.400,000,00(1 

VI 

l.-.ii. 

00,2,,  0,01  111 

1082 

11)38 

0,700, 1 

6,000,000 

15.701 

ooo 

3,020,0011 

2,400,000,000 

627 

000,000 

61,7(10,000 

2,520,00(1,000 

630 

800,000 

1,8,230, 

1 93  I 

ID,''l|D,l|lli| 

7. ,0110 

17,201 

(KM) 

5.12(1.000 

2,65.  " 

5  800,001) 

IS 

572,500 

3,026,500 

3,600,000 

4,070.1)00 

2,580,0011.000 

634 

75 

) 

(,5,11,(1,000 

193.5 

10,4.50,000 

,.000.000 

17,15) 

000 

4.142.1)00 

2,615.000.000 

Hill.  OOO 

1,7,810, 1 

1036 

lo.7no.ooo 

B,0OO,0O0 

18,701 

.5,720,000 

4,214.000 

2,710,000,00(1 

8,0,000 

68,0,0, 

1037 

11,111111,1,1)11 

7.000,000 

5,070,000 

4, 2S8.OO0 

2,780,000,000 

650 

,00,000 

,  1,2,50,0(111 

1  1,  -'.-,0,000 

.8,  000, 1100 

0,8  '0,000 

4,354.11(10 

654 

11, .-,-,0,000 

8,000,000 

10,55' 

0. 020,000 

1,42.3.000 

2,920,000,000 

660 

■ ."'HI 

1941 

1  1, 800,00(1 

S, 000.000 

li, 011(1,000 

4,4117,0011 

2,090,01 ))'. 

1942 

12, mo, 

O.OOO.OOO 

21.10) 

7,(100,000 

4, ,560. 1100 

3,310,000 

8,7)0,000 

4,641,0110 

3,140,000, .1 

1944 

12.700,000 

0,000,000 

21.701 

7,200,000 

3,12 

17 

'■2  1, 

1,8,0,000 

3,,  10,1100 

4,713.000 

3,220,000,000 

083 

2.IO.OOO 

70,(150.000 

1945 

13.0.80,(100 

21,0.51 

ooo 

7.450,000 

7,200,000 

sox.ooo 

3,182,000 

4,785,000 

690 

$106,322,000 

$99,000,000 

$81,300,000 

1946 

5229,775,000 

$171,000,000 

-100,775.11110 

SI  17.000,000 

%  57,l?\oso 

$120,400,000   5294,578,680 

$106,196,320 

SUMMARY 

LIABILITIES: 

/ 

..{■.01)0.000 

120, loo, 1 

CoT 

•1      iugj     !     11 

M.  CHRISTI 

,923. 

Deficit.. 

..^■.liiMi.lioo                 54,000, i 

Interest  on  bonds 

57,178,6 

$283,900,680 

5283,900,680 

Exhibit  "F' 


has  been  planned.  Two  of  the  projects,  the  Calumet  and 
the  Des  Plaines  River,  were  well  under  way  when  the 
Sanitary  District  Act  was  amended  in  1921,  making  it 
mandatory  that  sewage  treatment  works  should  be  con- 
structed at  such  a  rate  that,  beginning  with  the  year  1925  a 
population  of  at  least  300,000  per  year  should  be  provided 
with  sewage  treatment  until  at  least  60  percent  of  the  present 
population  is  provided  for.  A  brief  description  of  the  pro- 
gram, adopted  by  the  Sanitary  District,  which  will  meet 
these  requirements  follows.  Exhibit  D  is  a  tabulation  show- 
ing the  expenditures  on  sewage  treatment  projects,  by  years 
up  to  January  1,  1923.  Exhibit  E  is  a  tabulation  showing 
the  proposed  expenditures  on  all  projects  for  the  next 
twenty-three  years,  1923  to  1945.  Exhibit  F  is  a  tabulation 
showing  the  resources  of  the  Sanitary  District  from  1923  up 
to  1945.  This  shows  the  possible  receipts  from  taxes  and 
sale  of  bonds;  the  necessary  expenditures  for  interest  on 
bonds,  retiring  of  bonds,  maintenance,  operation  and 
administration;  and  the  balance  available  for  new  construc- 
tion. This  exhibit  indicates  the  financial  ability  of  the 
Sanitary  District  to  carry  out  the  construction  program 
adopted. 

I.     Des  Plaines  River  Sewage  Treatment  Project 

The  Des  Plaines  River  Project  is  designed  to  treat  the 
sewage  of  the  towns  draining  into  the  Des  Plaines  River  just 
west  of  Chicago.  This  covers  an  area  of  18.5  square  miles 
between  North  Avenue  and  Twenty-second  Street  and  west 
of  Harlem  Avenue,  having  a  present  population  of  39,000. 

The  Sewage  Treatment  Plant,  located  just  west  of 
the  Des  Plaines  River  and  south  of  Twelfth  Street,  serves 
the  towns  of  Maywood,  Melrose  Park,  Forest  Park,  River 
Forest,  the  northern  part  of  Oak  Park  and  the  U.  S.  Govern- 
ment's Speedway  Hospital.  In  this  plant  the  Activated 
Sludge  Process  is  used.  Construction  was  started  on  the 
project  in  1918,  delayed  considerably  by  war  conditions  and 
completed  and  the  plant  put  in  operation  in  August,  1922. 

17 


Additional  sewer  connections  are  planned  to  be  made  in  the 
very  near  future  to  bring  the  sewage  of  Broadview  and 
Bellwood  in  from  the  west  and  Elmwood  Park  from  the 
north.    The  cost  of  this  project  has  been: 

Des  Plaines  River  Sewers $1,458,218.46 

Sewage  Treatment  Plant 1,441,835.01 

"Total  to  January  1,  1923 $2,900,053.47 

Future  connections  and  extensions 550,000.00 

II.     Calumet  Sewage  Treatment  Project 

The  Calumet  Project  covers  the  entire  region  south  of 
87th  Street,  some  42.5  square  miles,  having  a  present 
population  of  179,000. 

This  Project  was  started  back  in  1915  with  the  be- 
ginning of  construction  of  the  Calumet  Intercepting  Sewers. 
There  are  more  than  13  miles  of  large  sized  sewers  involved 
now  completed  except  for  approximately  one-half  mile  of 
sewer,  which  is  under  construction.  The  Calumet  Pumping 
Station  was  built  1917  to  1921.  The  Calumet  Power  Plant, 
a  Diesel  Engine  plant  for  stand-by  service  for  the  pumping 
station,  was  built  1920  to  1922.  The  Calumet  Sewers, 
Pumping  Station  and  Power  Plant  although  listed  here  as  a 
part  of  the  Calumet  Treatment  Project  really  have  a  double 
function.  They  also  serve  as  feeders  to  the  Calumet-Sag 
Channel  in  the  general  Dilution  Project  and  if  the  Treatment 
Plant  was  not  in  operation  they  could  be  classified  as  a 
part  of  the  Dilution  Project.  The  Calumet  Treatment 
Plant  was  begun  in  1920,  the  sedimentation  tanks  com- 
pleted and  put  in  operation  in  September,  1922,  and  the 
tanks  for  the  Activated  Sludge  Process  put  in  service  in 
May,  1923.  The  Ninety-fifth  Street  Pumping  Station  will 
be  constructed  within  the  next  year,  completing  the  entire 
Calumet  Project  except  for  future  extensions. 

The  Sewage  Treatment  Plant,  located  at  125th  Street 
and  Cottage  Grove  Avenue,  is  now  treating  over  half  of  the 
sewage  of  the  Calumet  district.    In  this  plant  there  are  30 

18 


units  of  double  deck  Imhoff  tanks  in  which  the  sewage  is 
settled  and  2  units  in  which  the  Activated  Sludge  Process 
is  used.  Sedimentation  alone  gives  partial  treatment 
(approximately  33%).  There  is  one  trickling  filter  unit  to 
give  complete  treatment  to  the  sewage  passing  through  one 
of  the  Imhoff  tank  units.  Experiments  on  a  real  working 
scale  are  now  being  conducted,  comparing  Sedimentation 
plus  sprinkling  filter  and  Activated  Sludge,  to  determine  the 
policy  of  future  expansion  at  this  plant  as  well  as  knowledge 
for  design  of  the  larger  plants  soon  to  be  built  in  other 
sections  of  the  city. 

Future  extensions  of  this  project,  to  be  made  when  the 
population  justifies  them,  include  sewers  to  connect  Burn- 
ham,  Hegewisch,  West  Hammond,  Dolton,  Riverdale  and 
Blue  Island  to  the  Treatment  Plant;  also  additions  of 
trickling  filter  units  to  the  plant  itself. 

The  construction  costs  have  been: 

Calumet  Intercepting  Sewers $  5,049,400.61 

Calumet  PumDing  Station 1,499,402.02 

Calumet  Power  Plant 1,164,458.59 

Ninety-fifth  Street  Pumping  Station. .  5,496.07 

Calumet  Treatment  Plant 6,124,866.62 

Total  to  January  1,  1923 $13,843,623.91 

Estimated  cost  to  complete 3,518,000.00 

Future  extensions 3,125,000.00 

III.     North  Side  Sewage  Treatment  Project 

The  North  Side  Project  covers  the  district  lying  north 
of  Fullerton  Avenue,  Chicago,  extending  to  the  north  line  of 
Cook  County,  an  area  of  approximately  62  square  miles, 
with  a  population  (1927)  of  737,000.  Construction  on  this 
project  which  embraces  the  whole  North  Side  of  the  City  and 
the  North  Shore  towns  is  now  under  way,  work  having  begun 
in  January,  1922.  The  Treatment  Plant  is  the  third  of  the 
large  treatment  plants  to  be  constructed  by  the  Sanitary 
District  and  will  be  the  largest  Activated  Sludge  plant  in 
the  world.     A  tract  of  180  acres  of  land  was  acquired  in 

19 


1921,  located  just  west  of  the  North  Shore  Channel  and 
north  of  Howard  Avenue,  to  be  used  as  the  site  for  this 
plant.  A  contract  for  the  construction  of  the  aeration  and 
settling  tanks,  with  the  necessary  conduits  and  pipe  work, 
was  entered  into  on  August  9,  1923,  in  the  amount  of 
$5,602,635.50.  Other  contracts  for  work  on  this  plant,  such 
as  construction  of  a  pumping  station,  grit  chambers,  screen 
house,  blower  house,  laboratory,  machinery,  etc.,  will  be 
let  in  the  near  future.  The  estimated  cost  of  the  Treatment 
Plant  is  $13,500,000.00. 

The  system  of  intercepting  sewers  leading  to  the  North 
Side  Treatment  Plant  involves  the  construction  of  about 
14  miles  of  sewers  ranging  in  size  from  4  feet  to  18  feet  in 
diameter.  Sewers  will  be  constructed  along  both  sides  of 
the  North  Branch  of  the  Chicago  River  and  the  North  Shore 
Channel,  wdth  one  branch  leading  over  from  the  Lawrence 
Avenue  Pumping  Station.  One  branch  of  this  sewer  system, 
four  miles  long,  leading  down  from  the  North  Shore  Sewer 
at  Wilmette,  along  the  west  bank  of  the  North  Shore 
Channel  to  the  site  of  the  treatment  plant,  was  constructed 
in  1922.  The  estimated  cost  of  the  balance  of  the  system 
of  collecting  sewers  is  $10,300,000.00.  The  date  of  comple- 
tion of  the  project  has  been  set  for  the  year  1928. 

The  total  expenditures  on  this  project  have  been: 

North  Side  Sewer $2,023,662.99 

Treatment  Plant  (site,  etc.) 304,394.55 

Total  to  January  1,  1923 $2,328,057.54 

Estimated  cost  to  complete $23,800,000.00 


TV.     Industrial  Wastes  Treatment  Project 

The  Industrial  Wastes  Treatment  Project  covers  first, 
the  treatment  of  the  wastes  of  the  Stock  Yards  and  Packing- 
town,  and  second,  the  treatment  of  the  wastes  of  the  Corn 
Products  Company  at  Argo. 

Packingtowrn  and  the  Stock  Yards  occupy  an  area  of  only 
1.5  square  miles,  but  the  strong  trade  wastes  from  this  small 
district  are  equivalent  to  the  domestic  sewage  of  1,030,000 
people.    Preliminary  plans  have  been  prepared  for  a  plant 

20 


to  treat  this  sewage  and  a  site,  not  entirely  satisfactory 
because  of  its  small  size,  has  been  acquired.  Negotiations 
are  under  way  with  the  packing  interests  relative  to  the 
proportional  payments  to  be  made  for  construction  and 
operation.  The  construction  cost  is  estimated  at 
$7,350,000.00  and  the  date  of  completion  has  been  set  at 
1926  for  the  first  unit  and  1932  for  the  final  unit. 

The  wastes  of  the  Corn  Products  Company  at  Argo  are 
equivalent  to  the  domestic  sewage  of  380,000  people,  and 
are  concentrated  in  one  main  sewer.  Experiments  have 
been  practically  completed  on  these  wastes  and  in  the  near 
future  a  plant  will  be  planned  for  their  treatment.  The  date 
for  completion  is  set  for  1927.  The  construction  cost  is 
roughly  estimated  at  $1,800,000.00. 

The  industrial  waste  program  also  covers  the  taking 
care  of  other  wastes,  principally  from  tanneries  located 
on  the  North  Branch  of  the  Chicago  River. 

V.     West  Side  Sewage  Treatment  Project 

The  West  Side  Project  covers  an  area  of  57.5  square 
miles  lying  between  Fullerton  Avenue  and  Thirty-first 
Street  and  extending  east  from  Harlem  Avenue  to  the  Lake 
Front,  including  the  Loop  District.  This  is  by  far  the  most 
important  sewage  treatment  project  of  the  Sanitary  Dis- 
trict, on  account  of  its  size,  the  population  involved  being 
now  1,340,000.  Negotiations  are  now  under  way  for  a  site 
for  the  treatment  plant,  a  small  tract  of  land  having  already 
been  acquired.  One  intercepting  sewer,  the  Fifty-second 
Avenue  sewer,  has  been  built  at  a  cost  of  $283,379.50,  form- 
ing one  of  the  branches  of  the  collecting  system.  Some  16 
mifes  of  large  sized  sewers  need  to  be  built,  located  mostly 
in  the  busy  part  of  the  city.  Preliminary  layouts  have  been 
made  on  this  Project  and  surveys  will  be  started  within  the 
next  year.  The  estimated  cost  is  $24,200,000.00  and  the 
time  of  completion  is  set  at  1940. 

21 


VI.  The  Southwest  Side  Sewage  Treatment  Project 

The  Southwest  Side  Project  covers  all  that  portion  of  the 
city  lying  south  of  Thirty-first  Street  and  of  the  Drainage 
Canal  and  north  of  Eighty-seventh  Street.  The  area  of 
this  region  is  59.0  square  miles  and  the  population  is  now 
910,000.  Some  parts  of  this  district  are  now  sparsely  settled, 
and  it  was  deemed  advisable  to  make  this  project  the  last 
one  on  the  program.  Studies  are  being  made  of  changes  in 
certain  sewers  in  this  district  and  all  new  sewer  construction 
is  planned  with  the  ultimate  view  of  collection  in  one  spot 
for  treatment.  The  cost  of  this  project  is  estimated  at 
$17,850,000.00  and  the  date  of  completion  is  set  at  1945. 

VII.  Miscellaneous  Sewage  Treatment  Projects 

In  addition  to  the  six  major  sewage  treatment  projects 
outlined  above  a  number  of  small  projects  have  been  planned 
for  the  outlying  towns  and  villages.  The  Sanitary  District 
includes  49  incorporated  cities  and  villages  outside  of 
Chicago,  many  of  which  are  so  located  as  to  make  it  eco- 
nomical to  solve  their  problems  separately. 

The  building  of  sewage  treatment  plants  was  begun  by 
the  Sanitary  District  with  the  construction  of  a  small 
settling  tank  and  trickling  filter  plant  for  the  isolated 
tillage  of  Morton  Grove  in  1914.  This  plant  serves  a 
population  of  only  1,200  and  has  been  of  more  value  for 
experimental  purposes  than  for  any  real  relief  to  the  sanitary 
situation.  The  cost  of  its  construction  was  $65,964.31. 
Other  small  plants  have  cost  $1,942.10  up  to  January  1, 
1922. 

Following  is  a  list  of  small  projects,  now  under  con- 
sideration, with  an  estimate  of  cost  of  each  Others  will  be 
required  as  the  suburban  population  increases. 

Glenview   Treatment   Plant    (under 

construction) $        61,000.00 

Treatment    Plant    and    Sewers    for 

La    Grange,    Brookfield    and    La 

Grange  Park 600,000.00 

22 


Northbrook  (Shermerville)  Treat- 
ment Plant $        60,000.00 

Sewer  for   Oak   Forest,   Posen   and 

Robbins 300,000.00 

Park  Ridge  Sewer  Outlet 200,000.00 

Niles  Outlet  Sewer 75,000.00 

Treatment    Plant    for    Upper    Des 

Plaines  Towns 550,000.00 

Harvey  Treatment  Plant 500,000.00 

Schiller  Park  Treatment  Plant 30,000.00 

Miscellaneous    Plants    and    Sewers 

(Future) 10,640,000.00 

Total $13,016,000.00 

SUMMARY  OF  COSTS  OF  SEWAGE  TREATMENT 
Construction  To  January  1,  1923 

Experiments $      256,967.43«~ 

Des  Plaines  River  Project 2,900,053.47 

Calumet  Project 13,843,623.91 

North  Side  Project 2,328,057.54 

West  Side  Project 283,397.50 

Miscellaneous  Small  Projects 67,906.41 

Bare  Construction  Cost $19,697,988.26 

Administration,  legal  expense,  clerical 

expense,  etc 1,197,498.24 

Interest  on  bonds  for  Construction. . . 4,601,165.08 

Total    Expenditures    on    Sewage 

Treatment $25,478,651.58 

Future  Construction  Program  (1923-1924) 

Des  Plaines  River  Treatment  Projects      550,000.00 

Calumet  Treatment  Project 6,643,000.00 

North  Side  Treatment  Project 23,800,000.00 

Industrial  Wastes  Treatment  Project. .     9,150,000.00 

West  Side  Treatment  Project 24,200,000.00 

Southwest  Side  Treatment  Project.  .  .    17,850,000.00 
Miscellaneous        Small       Treatment 

Projects .    13,016,000.00 

Total $95,209,000.00 

Ultimate  Total  for  Sewage  Treat- 
ment  $120,687,651.58 

23 


DILUTION  REQUIRED,  1923  to  1945 

Using  a  dilution  ratio  of  3.33  c.  f.  s.  of  fresh  water  for 
each  1,000  people  whose  wastes  are  carried  untreated  into 
the  Main  Drainage  Canal,  there  is  now  required  (1923)  a 
diversion  of  15,500  c.  f.  s.     The  present  status  is 

Population  Sanitary  District  (1923) 3,213,000 

Stock  Yards  Wastes,  equivalent  to 1,030,000 

Corn  Products  Wastes,  equivalent  to 380,000 

Miscellaneous  Wastes,  equivalent  to 150,000 

Total 4,773,000 

Less  population  treated 

Morton  Grove 1,200 

Calumet  Plant  (Equivalent). .  .72,800 

Des  Plaines  River  Plant 39,000  113,000 

Equivalent  population  not  treated 4,660,000 

Diversion  needed  for  same 15,500  c.  f.  s. 

Even  though  the  diversion  of  this  amount  should  be 
permitted  it  could  not  be  used  because  the  capacity  of  the 
Dilution  System  is  but  10,000  c.  f.  s.  The  figures  indicate 
that  the  Sanitar}^  District  is  behind  in  its  sewage  treat- 
ment schedule.  It  is  behind,  because  conditions  during 
and  after  the  World  War  not  only  materially  increased 
costs,  but  slowed  construction  while  Chicago's  population 
increased  at  its  regular  rate.  The  program  adopted 
for  the  years  1923  to  1945,  providing  for  the  expenditure 
of  $106,322,000  on  new  construction  will  use  up  all  of 
the  resources  of  the  Sanitary  District,  but  it  will  enable 
it  to  catch  up  in  the  matter  of  sewage  disposal  with  the 
growth  of  the  community.  The  population  of  the  Sanitary 
District  is  increasing  at  the  rate  of  71,000  per  year.  It  is 
not  a  simple  little  proposition  to  take  care  of  the  sewage 
of  a  community  which  adds  to  its  population  the  equivalent 
of  a  city  like  Washington  once  in  every  six  }<ears. 

Exhibit  G  is  a  tabulation  showing  the  amount  of  water 
estimated  at  the  various  times  over  the  next  23  years  to 
dilute  the  sewage  of  the  Sanitary  District  in  accordance 
with  its  charter  while  the  treatment  projects  are  being 

24 


* 

*    * 

IO 

£  W     . 

* 

* 

■>r      * 

"* 

* 

2  sw 
5§° 

^",  o  o  o 

tO 

o 

O  iO  iO 

oo 

OS 

o 

o  o  o  o 

CN 

t^ 

o  r-  'M 

o  o 

tH 

o 

LO  00  t-H   "* 

r— | 

q_ 

°„'~10« 

o 

oo 

o 

io"io"c  CO 

CO 

co" 

o"o"o" 

o'o" 

Q 

o* 

,_|   ,_|   ,_(   ,_| 

r~' 

^ 

HHH 

iH 

T— 1   1—1 

1-1 

>— I    y 
Ph 

Q 

w 

w 

hJ 

H 

Ph 

t- 

o 

CO 

Ph 

§ 

Q 

CM 

o 

^ 

O  H 

O  O  O  O 

iH 

o 

3 

CM 

o  o  o 

s 

o  o 

O 

o 

^2 

E  ^ 

o  o  o  o 

00 

o 

o 

o 

CO 

o  o  o 

o  o 

o 

cd 

iH 

5  w 
J.05 

cocoono© 

gs 

l> 

CN 

a 

T-4 

iO 

lOCCC 

o 
o 

co^oo" 

CO 

o^ 

> 

CO'tfCO  t-h 

^H  *^H   *HH  Tt^ 

«g 

a,  ?* 

Shh 

CO 

°i 

CO 

Oi 

CO*" 

T-^  iO  00 
OJO^H 

oTco'co" 

< 

CO  00 

CO 

«o 

OH 

CM  >H 

^H 

w  W 
fag 

1° 

< 

Ph 

H 

w 

T-l 

.s 

Oft 

Ph 

H 

o 

O   Q 

COCO 

o 

o 

o 

o  o  o 

o 

oo 

H 

o 

o 

£  a 

o 

o 

CJ 

o  o  o 

oo 

H 

o 

.5 

►J      ^ 

cocccocc 

1_J" 

p 

o 

uo" 

H 

0  0;0 

o'o'o" 

►-H 

H 

< 

oo 

q_ 

c 

M 

HHINM 

OS 

<J 

00 

fe 

N^O 

CO     T-I 

»o 

o 

T-H   T-H   1-1   i— 1 

in 

o 

Ttl 

<J 

o^oo^c^ 

H 

LO  l> 

s 

CN 

oH 

T-I 

T-I 

J 

cncCcnT 

fe 

co"co" 

1— t 

Q 

w 

CO 

Th 

.2 

Ph 

o 

H 

o 
>> 

fc  o 

o  c  o  o 

o 

p 

o 

o  o  o 

5 

w 

oo 

o 

H   <   < 

oooo 

WH 

o 

Q 

o 

H 

ooo 

s — ' 

o  o 

<J 

o 

TH 

cd 

oooo 

coH 

o 

< 

o 

<; 

o^oo 

qo^ 

i-q 

q 

h5 

M^'iOO 

00~ 

o" 

H 
Q 

^""o"co" 

oo" 

Ph 

CO 

^ 

t^CO  iOt)h 

IN 

w 

H 

1—1 

OSI>  Tj< 

NO 

00 

£ 

So 

t^pp. 

i>oooq 

°1 

-* 

lOGOrH 

< 

co_q 

H 

l> 

u 

QO 

CO 

WPh 

rjr^^ro 

tO~ 

o" 

iO  OO 

- 

Ph 

H 

OCO 

S 
H 

S 

cc" 

•d 

QOJ 

ta 

Ph 

a 

H 

Pkco 

fig 

WO 

g& 

««P 

oooo 

o 

o 

o 
O 

ooo 

oo 

W 
Ph 

H 

o 

D  ^  £  ^ 

oooo 
o~o~o~o~ 

o 

o 

ooo 
ooo 
o"o~o~ 

H 

oo 

o 
q 

eoocN 

o 
o 

o 

g 
2 

- 

o 

H 

^co 

Ph 
H 

w 

o  S 

W 

o 

o 

ZT      CO 

io»ocD«q 

- 

l> 

CO 

i>  oo^oo^ 

°l°i 

Q 

t-H 

CO 

q 

CN 

> 

* 

2 

CO 

Q 

t— ( 

H 

# 

«p 

CO 

CO 

i° 

2  5  H 

<  5  « 

oooo 

o 

o 

ooo 

H 
CO 

oo 

oooo 

o 

o 

ooo 

w 

oo 

o 

oooo 

o 

ooo 

^ 

0.0 

H 

o 

J   Z   H 

CO  TfiO  o" 

oo" 

o 

Tt^O^CO 

lOO 

O 

CO 

oj 

£>    <!    1/5 

t-i  OOiOCN 

CO 

iO  t^  00 

(M  t^ 

00 

a 

£tO   ~ 

CN  CN  CO^ 

»o 

l> 

00  O^fN 

^<q 

t^ 

oo~eo  co  co~ 

co" 

CO*" 

M  Tt^rjT 

"*  ■* 

CO 

tJh" 

CJ 

Q 

a 

o 

Pi 

CO'*  loo 

00 

(M  tO  00 

OCO 

»o 

< 

CN  <N  CN  IN 

(M 

CO 

COCO  CO 

t^tHH 

T^ 

S 

w 

Oi  Oi  Oi  G^ 

O 

05 

o^o-.c^ 

oo 

o> 

JH 

T-H    T-I    1— 1    1— 1 

* 

constructed.  In  this  table  the  rate  of  dilution  is  taken  at 
3.33  c.  f.  s.  of  water  per  1,000  population.  No  account 
is  taken  of  the  sewage  from  the  towns  in  the  northwest 
corner  of  Indiana  draining  into  the  Sanitary  District  by  way 
of  the  Calumet  River.  These  towns  had  a  population  of 
127,000  in  1920.  Neither  has  been  considered  the  transient 
or  floating  population  of  Chicago,  amounting  to  over  100,000. 

METERING  OF  WATER  SUPPLY 

Within  the  past  few  months  a  movement  has  been  started 
in  Chicago  backed  by  Engineering  Societies  and  other 
Civic  Organizations,  which  it  is  hoped  will  lead  to  the 
metering  of  water.  The  pumpage  is  now  approximately 
275  gallons  per  capita  per  day,  which  is  obviously  much 
more  than  is  necessary.  Metering  of  water  would  be  of 
great  value  to  the  Sanitary  District  in  carrying  out  its 
sewage  treatment  program  as  it  would  surely  cut  down  the 
amount  of  water  used.  It  is  difficult  to  compute  what  the 
exact  saving  would  be,  but  it  is  estimated  that  metering 
would  save  25  per  cent  of  the  construction  costs  of  the 
West  Side  and  the  Southwest  Side  Projects.  The  North 
Side  Project  is  already  under  way  and  will  be  completed 
before  water  meters  could  be  installed,  so  no  immediate 
saving  can  be  assumed  under  any  condition.  However, 
metering  would  prolong  the  life  of  the  present  construction 
on  this  project  by  about  10  years,  that  is  it  will  push  the 
time  that  additions  are  needed  in  the  capacity  of  the 
plant  10  }^ears  farther  in  the  future  and  eventually  effect  a 
saving  of  25  per  cent.  It  would  decrease  the  annual  cost 
of  the  whole  program  about  $2,000,000.00  after  1945,  the 
date  of  final  construction. 

REGULATING  WORKS  FOR  GREAT  LAKES 

It  has  been  estimated  that  a  diversion  of  10,000  c.  f.  s. 
from  Lake  Michigan  at  Chicago  would  have  a  maximum 
lowering  effect  on  Lakes  Michigan  and  Huron  of  five  and 
one-half  (53/0  inches.     Its  effect  on  the  levels  of  Lakes 

25 


Erie  and  Ontario  would  be  a  lowering  of  approximately 
the  same  amount.  To  compensate  for  any  lowering  effect 
caused  by  the  operation  of  the  Chicago  Drainage  Canal  or 
of  the  Dilution  Project,  the  Sanitary  District  offers  to  pay 
for  the  construction  of  Regulating  Works  in  the  Niagara 
River  at  the  outlet  of  Lake  Erie  and  in  the  St.  Lawrence 
River  at  the  outlet  of  Lake  Ontario.  It  does  not  suggest 
regulating  works  of  any  particular  type,  but  will  collaborate 
in  any  scheme  which  the  United  States  Engineers  think 
advisable,  and  will  design  for  comparison  and  stud}^ 
various  types  of  such  works. 

Preliminary  designs  of  regulating  works  and  an  analysis 
of  their  use  indicate  that  the  average  level  of  Lake  Erie 
can  be  raised  fourteen  inches  in  a  decade  of  dry  years 
and  twelve  inches  in  a  decade  of  normal  years  and  at  very 
low  stages  the  level  of  Lake  Erie  can  be  safely  raised  at  least 
19J/2  inches.  This  is  the  time  when  water  is  most  needed 
for  navigation  and  water  power.  The  result  of  operation 
under  the  low  stage  conditions  is  the  real  test  of  the  value 
of  the  proposed  regulating  works.  This  same  study 
indicates  that  the  level  of  Lake  Ontario  can  be  raised 
twenty-one  inches  in  a  decade  of  dry  years  and  twelve 
inches  in  a  decade  of  normal  years.  These  regulating  and 
compensating  works  consist  of  movable  dams,  placed  in 
a  portion  of  the  outlets  of  the  lakes  which,  when  closed, 
throttle  the  outlets  and  when  opened  permit  a  higher  out- 
flow than  normal  due  to  the  higher  lake  stage. 

The  feasibility  of  safely  and  certainly  regulating  lake 
and  river  levels  cannot  be  denied.  The  estimated  cost  of 
constructing  suitable  Regulating  Works  is  $2,500,000.00. 

More  details  regarding  the  feasibility  and  the  benefits 
of  the  use  of  Regulating  Works  can  be  found  in  Appendix 
"B"  at  the  end  of  this  report.  Appendix  "B"  is  a  reprint 
of  A  REVIEW,  made  in  December,  1921,  by  Francis  C. 
Shenehon,  Consulting  Engineer,  of  all  the  circumstances 
surrounding  the  Withdrawal  of  Water  from  the  Great  Lakes 

26 


System  by  the  Sanitary  District  of  Chicago.  Mr.  Shenehon 
is  a  Consulting  Hydraulic  Engineer  of  note,  whose  con- 
nection for  many  years  with  the  United  States  Lake  Survey, 
has  rendered  him  particularly  well  qualified  to  discuss  this 
subject. 

MISCELLANEOUS  WORK 

In  addition  to  the  work  under  way  and  planned  by  the 
Sanitary  .District  to  carry  out  the  program  of  Sewage 
Treatment,  there  are  a  number  of  items  of  construction 
which  must  be  done  for  the  public  welfare  to  compensate 
for  the  inconvenience  caused  by  past  construction.  Among 
these  are  bridges  across  the  Main  Drainage  Canal,  a  portion 
of  the  cost  of  a  bridge  across  the  Chicago  River  at  Roosevelt 
R  oad  (Twelfth  Street) ,  highways  along  the  channels  to  give 
access  to  dock  property,  etc.  Another  job  is  the  Thirty- 
ninth  Street  Conduit  Extension,  previously  mentioned, 
now  under  construction.  An  important  item  is  the  dredging 
of  the  Little  Calumet  River  between  Lake  Calumet  and 
Blue  Island  to  a  navigable  depth  of  12  feet  for  a  width  of 
90  feet,  completing  the  link  between  the  Calumet  Sag 
Channel  and  the  United  States  Government's  project  in  the 
Calumet  River.  It  is  also  proposed  to  pay  the  cost  of 
construction  of  regulating  works  at  the  outlets  of  Lake  Erie 
and  Ontario  to  restore  lake  levels. 

A  summary  of  the  miscellaneous  work  now  pending  is : 

California     Avenue     Bridge     (under 

construction) $  1,000,000.00 

Crawford  Avenue  Bridge 1,000,000.00 

Cicero  Avenue  Bridge ' .  1,000,000.00 

Harlem  Avenue  Bridge 1,000,000.00 

Roosevelt  Road  Bridge 600,000.00 

Lemont  Outlet  Sewer. . 30,000.00 

Thirty-ninth  Street  Conduit  Extension 

(under  construction) 1,983,000.00 

Dredging  Little  Calumet  River 1,000,000.00 

Highways 1,000,000.00 

Regulating  Works  for  Great  Lakes. .  .  2,500,000.00 

Total $11,113,000.00 

27 


FLOOD  RUN-OFF  CHICAGO  RIVER  DRAINAGE  AREA 

The  drainage  area  of  the  Chicago  River  is  307  square 
miles,  of  which  219  square  miles  drains  into  the  North 
Branch  and  88  square  miles  into  the  South  Branch.  A 
flood  run-off  of  13.6  cubic  feet  per  second  per  square  mile 
over  this  area  will  exceed  4,167  cubic  feet  per  second.  Such 
a  run-off  occurs  from  seven  to  eight  times  per  year  under 
present  conditions,  with  156  square  miles  sewered,  and  151 
square  miles  not  sewered.  As  the  built  up  sections  of  the 
district  increase,  the  sewered  area  will  increase  and  the 
run-off  rate   will   increase. 

The  run-off  from  the  drainage  area  of  the  Chicago  River 
exceeds  4,167  c.  f.  s.  from  7  to  8  times  per  year 
exceeds  5,000  c.  f.  s.  from  5  to  6  times  per  year 
exceeds  7,500  c.  f.  s.  from  3  to  4  times  per  year 
exceeds  9,500  c.  f.  s.  about  1  time  per  year 
With  a  definite  maximum  limit  established  for  the 
diversion  from  Lake  Michigan,  materially  less  than  10,000 
c.  f.  s.  there  would  be  many  times  when  the  Chicago  River 
would  reverse  and  flow  into  the  Lake.  On  March  17,  1919, 
due  to  a  flood  in  the  Des  Plaines  River,  combined  with  a 
flood  from  the  Chicago  River  water  shed,  it  was  necessary 
to  flow  15,560  c.  f.  s.  through  the  Controlling  Works  at 
Lockport"ior  a  short  interval  to  prevent  a  reversal  of  the 
Chicago  River.  Two  days  later,  on  March  19,  1919,  a 
rate  of  15,200  c.  f.  s.  was  necessary.  On  these  two  days, 
3,850  c.  f.  s.  was  spilled  from  the  Des  Plaines  River  into 
the  Main  Channel  at  Willow  Springs.  The  capacity  of  the 
Des  Plaines  River  Improvement  Channel  through  Joliet 
was  taxed  to  its  limit  of  25,000  c.  f.  s.  In  this  flood  and  in 
another  one  of  almost  the  same  intensity,  from  May  3rd  to 
6th,  1919,  the  worst  operating  condition  in  the  past  decade 
was  reached.  The  source  of  flood  supply  was  probably 
From  North  Branch  Chicago  River. .  .  .   4,700  c.  f.  s. 

From  Chicago  (Central  and  West) 3,000  c.  f.  s. 

From  South  Fork  of  South  Branch  ....    1,900  c.  f.  s. 
From  Sag  Valley 2,400  c.  f.  s. 

Total  in  Main  Channel 12,000  c.  f.  s. 

From  Des  Plaines  River 13,000  c.  f.  s. 

Total  through  Joliet  (capacity) 25,000  c.  f.  s. 

28 


An  unusually  heavy  rain,  2.68  inches,  fell  during  the 
early  morning  hours  of  August  11, 1923,  and  caused  the  most  J 
serious  reversal  in  the  Chicago  River  which  has  happened  | 
since  1900.  Complete  details  of  this  matter  are  given  in  an 
appended  report.  (See  Appendix  "C")  The  flow  in  the 
Drainage  Canal,  measured  at  Lockport,  was  approximately 
10,000  c.  f.  s.  from  9:00  p.  m.  August  10th,  till  5:00  a.  m. 
August  11th  and  4,340  c.  f.  s.  from  5:00  a.  m.  till  9:00  a.  m. 
August  11th,  an  average  over  these  twelve  hours  of  8,110 
c.  f.  s.  Reversal  of  the  Chicago  River  was  observed  about 
9:00  a.  m.,  the  flow  was  increased,  averaging  approximately 
13,850  c.  f.  s.  from  9:00  a.  m.  till  1:00  p.  m.,  when  flow  I 
from  the  lake  was  re-established.  A  flowr  averaging  12,000 
c.  f.  s.  from  1:00  p.  m.  until  7:00  p.  m.  was  necessarj*-  to 
hold  the  Chicago  River  from  reversing  again.  This  is 
an  example  of  what  might  happen  during  any  heavy  rain 
unless  the  flow  established  in  the  Chicago  River  is  more 
than  the  run-off  due  to  the  rainfall.  Rains  causing  run-offs 
up  to  10,000  c.  f.  s.  occur  on  an  average  of  approximately 
once  a  year  in  Chicago. 

The  sewers  in  Chicago,  between  Howard  Avenue  on  the 
north  and  Eighty-seventh  Street  on  the  south,  discharging 
into  the  Chicago  River  and  Drainage  Canal,  have  a  total  flow 
capacity  of  10,500  c.  f.  s.  when  running  full  with  hydraulic  I 
slopes  parallel  to  the  bottom  grades  of  the  sewers.  There  J 
are  few  of  these  same  sewers  which  do  not  operate  under 
a  head  and  discharge  much  more  during  only  moderate  rains. 

Assuming  average  rates  of  run-off  as  0.10  from  the  151 
square  miles  of  area  not  sewered  and  0.50  from  the  156 
square  miles  of  area  sewered,  gives  an  average  rate  of  0.30 
from  the  total  watershed  of  307  square  miles.  An  inch  per 
hour  of  rainfall  equals  1  c.  f.  s.  per  acre  or  640  c.  f.  s.  per 
square  mile.  On  this  basis,  in  the  Chicago  River  Watershed, 
a  long  continued  rain  of 

0.05    inch  per  hour  will  run  off 2,947  c.  f.  s. 

0.071  inch  per  hour  will  run  off 4,167  c.  f.  s. 

0.10    inch  per  hour  will  run  off 5,894  c.  f.  s. 

0.15    inch  per  hour  will  run  off 8,841  c.  f.  s. 

0.20    inch  per  hour  will  run  off 11,788  c.  f.  s. 

29 


The  velocity  in  the  Drainage  Canal,  or  any  other 
channel,  for  a  flow  10,000  c.  f.  s.  is  2.4  times  the  velocity  for 
a  flow  of  4,167  c.  f.  s.  If  the  water  cross-section  remain 
^constant,  the  fall  from  Lake  Michigan  to  Lockport,  36 
miles,  or  for  any  other  distance,  necessary  to  cause  a  flow  of 
10,000  c.  f.  s.  is  2.4  squared,  or  5.76  times  the  fall  necessary 
to  cause  a  flow  of  4,167  c.  f.  s.  The  lesser  flow,  requiring 
less  slope  and  causing  a  greater  water  cross-sectional  area, 
will  raise  this  ratio  to  approximately  1  to  6  in  place  of 
1  to  5.76.  With  the  surface  of  Lake  Michigan  at  0.0  c.  c.  d., 
the  water  surface  in  the  Main  Drainage  Canal  at  Lockport 
must  be  at  approximately — 1.2  c.  c.  d.  to  produce  a  flow  of 
4,167  c.  f.  s.  through  the  Chicago  River  and  Calumet-Sag 
Channel.  The  water  surface  at  Lockport  must  be  at 
approximately — 7.0  c.  c.  d.,  to  produce  a  flow  of  10,000  c.  f.  s. 

It  is  not  uncommon  for  the  surface  level  of  Lake  Michigan 
at  Chicago  to  drop  as  much  as  six  inches  due  to  a  change  in 
the  direction  of  the  wind  or  a  change  in  the  barometer. 
Such  a  change  can  happen  in  an  hour  and  if  the  Drainage 
Canal  was  flowing  only  4,167  c.  f.  s.  at  such  a  time  the  upper 
40  per  cent  or  14  miles  of  the  Channel  and  River  would  be 
above  lake  level.  This  would  cause  flow  into  Lake 
Michigan,  principally  from  the  North  Branch  of  the  River. 
If  the  Drainage  Canal  was  flowing  10,000  c.  f.  s.  at  such  a 
time  only  the  upper  7  per  cent  or  2.5  miles  of  the  River 
would  be  above  lake  level.  It  requires  a  lapse  of  time  of 
three  or  four  hours  for  the  effect  of  a  change  m.ade  in  the 
flow  in  the  Canal  at  Lockport  to  be  even  noticed  in  the  upper 
Chicago  River;  at  least  eight  hours  to  cause  any  considerable 
change  in  the  condition  of  the  Chicago  River  and  about 
twenty-four  hours  for  the  full  effect  of  the  change  to  be 
established  in  the  River.  For  this  reason  it  is  necessary 
to  have  a  safe  flow  established  at  all  times.  The  differ- 
ence between  4,167  c.  f.  s.  and  10,000  c.  f.  s.  is  the  difference 
between  almost  constant  danger  of  pollution  to  the  water 
supply  and  reasonable  safety.     The  actual  time  required, 

30 


as  mentioned  above,  to  alter  flow  conditions  in  the  Chicago 
River  by  changing  the  flow  through  the  Lockport  Con- 
trolling Works  was  determined  by  a  series  of  elaborate 
experiments  made  in  February,  March  and  September,  1914. 

A  flow  of  4,167  c.  f.  s.  would  mean  constant  danger  of 
pollution  to  the  water  supply.  As  long  as  the  capacity  of 
the  Drainage  Canal  remains  at  approximately  10,000  c.  f.  s., 
as  at  present,  there  would  always  be  a  chance  to  prevent 
pollution  by  increasing  the  flow  in  time  to  take  care  of 
heavy  rains.  But  with  this  low  flow  (4,167  c.  f.  s.),  main- 
tained practically  all  the  time  over  a  period  of  a  few  years, 
such  silting  would  take  place  in  the  Chicago  River  and 
Drainage  Canal  as  to  give  the  channels  a  capacity  of  only 
4,167  c.  f.  s.  Then  danger  of  pollution  would  become 
certainty  of  pollution  at  the  first  heavy  rain  because  of  the 
impossibility  of  flowing  a  sufficient  quantity  of  flood  water 
through  the  channel  of  small  capacity. 

NEED  OF  DIVERSION  AT  CHICAGO 

The  Sanitary  District  requires  a  diversion  of  10,000 
cubic  feet  per  second  from  Lake  Michigan  at  Chicago  for  the 
following  reasons : 

First:  It  has,  at  an  expense  of  $97,593,669.98,  con- 
structed a  system  of  canals,  auxiliary  sewers  and  pumping 
stations  and  has  made  improvements  in  the  Chicago  River 
and  Des  Plaines  River,  completing  in  every  detail  a  project 
that  has  a  capacity  of  10,000  c.  f.  s.  for  the  dilution  of 
sewage,  a  project  that  will  provide  for  3,000,000  people. 
The  capacity  of  the  project  as  designed  and  built  was  that 
specified  in  the  Act  of  the  General  Assembly  of  Illinois  of 
May  29,  1889.  The  construction  of  the  Drainage  Canal 
was  given  the  greatest  publicity.  It  was  inspected  by 
eminent  engineers,  representatives  of  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment and  of  Foreign  Powers,  delegations  from  various 
states  of  the  Union  and  from  civic  bodies.  All  phases  of  the 
project  were  widely  discussed  in  the  public  press  and  in 

31 


technical  journals.  The  construction  of  the  North  Shore 
and  the  Calumet-Sag  Channels  was  given  the  same  publicity. 
The  Main  Drainage  Canal  is  the  most  expensive  and  the 
most  important  link  in  the  Waterway  from  the  Great  Lakes 
to  the  Gulf  of  Mexico.  Its  capacity  of  10,000  c.  f.  s.  makes 
it  a  help  and  not  a  hindrance  to  navigation.  While  it  was 
being  constructed  no  hint  was  given  from  any  source  that 
it  could  not  be  used  to  its  full  capacity;  that  it  should  be 
completed  and  rank  almost  as  one  of  the  wonders  of  the 
world  and  then  be  used  to  only  41.67  per  cent  of  its  capacity. 
This  dilution  project  has  cost  the  people  of  the  Sanitary 
District  in  round  figures  one  hundred  millions  of  dollars,  a 
I  per  capita  expenditure  which  if  applied  to  the  whole  United 
I  States  would  raise  a  sum  sufficient  to  build  twelve  Panama 
;  Canals,  or  retire  the  Third  Liberty  Loan.  The  taking 
away  of  the  right  to  divert  10,000  c.  f.  s.  and  use  this  project 
to  its  full  capacity  will  destroy  this  investment  and  will  work 
an  unreasonable  hardship  on  the  people  of  this  community. 

Second:    Although  the  Sanitary  District  has  already 
expended   $25,478,651.58   on   the   construction   of  sewage 
treatment  projects  and  plans  to  spend  $95,209,000.00  more 
for  the  same  purpose  in  the  next  twenty-three  years,  a 
diversion  of  more  than  10,000  c.  f .  s.  is  needed  to  properly 
dispose  of  the  sewage  of  this  community  .during  this  con- 
struction period  and  a  diversion  of  at  least  this  amount 
will  be  needed  at  the  end  of  the  period  to  provide  for  the 
2,531,000  and  more  of  people  who  will  live  here  then  and 
whose  wastes  must  be  treated  by  dilution  in  the  present 
I  sewage  treatment  program.     Another  consideration  is  the 
:  fact  that  artificial  sewage  treatment  is  not  100  per  cent 
"efficient  and  not  100  per  cent  sure.     With  10,000  c.  f.  s.  of 
water  available  for  use  to  dilute  sewage  no  harm  could 
'  come  to  the  community  should  a  treatment  plant  tempor- 
arily cease  to  function.     This  diversion  is  needed  to  take 
care  of  the  filth  which  will  be  washed  off  streets  during 
rains,  the  treatment  plants  not  being  designed  to  handle 

32 


the  extra  sewer  flow  caused  by  rains,  also  to  handle  sewage 
originating  in  certain  areas  where  it  is  not  feasible  to 
collect  it  for  treatment. 

Third :  A  diversion  of  10,000  c.  f .  s.  is  needed  to  prevent 
the  Chicago  River  from  reversing  and  flowing  into  Lake 
Michigan  during  a  heavy  rain.  With  a  flow  slightly  less 
than  this  amount,  past  records  indicate  that  the  river  would 
reverse  on  an  average  of  once  a  year.  With  lesser  flows 
the  number  of  reversals  would  be  more  frequent  and  a  flow 
as  low  as  4,167  c.  f.  s.  would  permit  a  reversal  seven  or  eight 
times  per  year,  or  every  time  there  was  an  ordinarily 
hard  rain.  The  rain  of  August  11,  1923,  demonstrated 
that  the  Chicago  River  would  reverse  during  a  heavy  rain 
with  practically  the  full  flow  established  in  the  Drainage 
Canal.  In  this  particular  case  it  required  a  flow  of  approxi- 
mately 13,800  c.  f.  s.  for  four  hours  to  change  the  flow  back 
from  the  lake  to  the  river  and  a  flow  of  approximately 
12,000  c.  f.  s.  for  six  hours  more  to  hold  it  there.  If  the 
water  supply  of  Chicago  is  to  be  protected  from  possible 
contamination  by  sewage,  it  is  necessary  that  a  flow  of 
10,000  c.  f.  s.  be  maintained  in  the  Drainage  Canal  and 
even  this  should  be  increased  during  the  exceptionally 
heavy  rains. 

CONCLUSION 

The  past  and  future  expenditures  in  connection  with 
sewage  disposal  and  the  incidental  work  arising  therefrom 
in  the  Sanitary  District  of  Chicago  are  summarized  in  the 
following  table: 

Costs  of  Past  Construction 

Dilution   and   Navigation   Project, 

capacitv    3,000,000    people   with 

10,000  c.  f.  s.  diversion $  97,593,669.98 

Water  power  development 1,395,712.75 

Sewage  Treatment 25,478,651.58 

Total  to  January  1,  1923 $123,072,321.56 

33 


Future  Construction  (1923-1945) 

Sewage  Treatment  Projects 95,209,000.00 

Miscellaneous  Work. . . . 11,113,000.00 

Total  Construction $229,394,321.56 

These  lavish  expenditures  demonstrate  that  the  Sanitary 
District  has  done  and  will  do  all  that  any  community  can 
do  to  protect  the  health  of  its  inhabitants.  Its  past  record 
is  a  record  of  progress.  Its  future  program  provides  for  as 
much  new  work  as  any  organization  can  promise  to  perform 
and  carry  out.  It  pledges  all  its  resources  for  the  next 
twenty-five  years  to  preserve  the  health  of  five  millions  of 
people.  The  value  of  the  lives  saved  by  keeping  pure  and 
undefiled  the  waters  of  Lake  Michigan  more  than  com- 
pensates for  any  damage  caused  by  temporarily  slightly 
lowering  lake  levels.  In  addition  the  great  contribution  of 
the  Sanitary  District  in  aid  of  navigation  is  an  element  to 
be  given  great  consideration. 


34 


APPENDIX  A 

HISTORICAL  FACTS  REGARDING  DIVERSION  AT  CHICAGO 

Events  Preceding  the  Construction  of  the  Drainage  Canal 

The  construction  of  the  Main  Drainage  Canal  of  the  Sanitary 
District  of  Chicago  was  not  without  precedent  and  not  without  the 
sanction  of  the  Federal  Government. 

When  Illinois  was  admitted  to  the  Union  the  question  of  constructing 
a  waterway  between  the  Lake  Michigan  and  Mississippi  River  water- 
sheds was  under  consideration.  In  1822,  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States  recognized  the  value  of  building  a  canal  "connecting  the  Illinois 
River  with  the  southern  bend  of  Lake  Michigan",  and  on  March  30 
1922,  Congress  passed  an  Act  providing  for  such  a  canal  and  donating 
to  the  State  of  Illinois  certain  lands  to  aid  in  the  construction.  The 
State  did  not  meet  with  the  requirements  of  the  Act  and  it  expired 
through  lapse  of  time. 

Congress  again,  on  March  2,  1827,  passed  an  Act  providing  for  the 
construction  of  a  canal  "to  unite  the  waters  of  the  Illinois  River  with 
those  of  Lake  Michigan"  and  donating  to  the  State  a  certain  amount 
of  land  to  assist  in  the  construction  of  the  canal.  The  State  of  Illinois 
met  with  the  requirements  of  this  Act,  received  the  land  and  provided 
for  the  construction  by  an  Act  of  the  General  Assembly  passed  January 
9,  1836.  Section  16  of  this  Act  provided  that  the  canal  should  "be 
supplied  with  water  from  Lake  Michigan  and  such  other  sources  as  the 
Canal  Commissioners  may  think  proper." 

The  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  in  Missouri  vs.  Illinois, 
200  U.  S.  495-526,  in  speaking  of  the  effect  of  the  action  of  Congress 
and  of  Illinois  in  providing  for  the  construction  and  operation  of  this 
canal,  said:  "it  is  enough  to  say  that  Illinois  brought  Chicago  into  the 
Mississippi  watershed  in  pursuance  not  only  of  its  own  statutes  but 
also  of  the  Acts  of  Congress  of  March  30, 1822  *  *  *  *  *  *  and  March  2, 
1827  ******  the  validity  of  which  is  not  disputed." 

It  is  obvious  that  Congress  intended,  by. the  Acts  mentioned,  and 
Illinois  understood,  that  water  might  be  withdrawn  from  Lake  Michigan 
for  the  purpose  of  creating  a  stream  and  waterway  from  Lake  Michigan 

35 


to  the  Desplaines  and  Illinois  Rivers.  There  was  no  limitation  as  to 
the  amount  of  the  withdrawal.  The  waterway  and  stream  having  been 
created  by  the  sovereign  authorities  of  the  United  States  and  the  State 
of  Illinois,  it  may  be  presumed  that  it  was  intended  it  should  be  utilized 
in  every  way  that  such  a  waterway  or  stream  might  serve  the  people 
of  the  Country  and  the  State. 

A  waterway  from  Lake  Michigan  to  the  Illinois  River,  the  Illinois 
and  Michigan  Canal,  was  completed  in  1848.  Shortly  thereafter, 
pumps  were  installed  at  Bridgeport,  the  northern  terminus  of  the  canal, 
to  withdraw  water  from  the  South  Branch  of  the  Chicago  River  for  the 
canal's  operation  and  also  for  the  purpose  of  cleansing  to  some  extent, 
the  river  which  was  even  then  polluted  by  sewage. 

In  1871,  the  Illinois  and  Michigan  Canal  was  enlarged  and  deepened 
across  the  summit  from  Chicago  to  Lockport,  to  withdraw  a  greater 
amount  of  water  from  the  Chicago  River.  This  produced  the  first 
diversion  of  water  from  Lake  Michigan  at  Chicago  by  gravity  and  was 
the  forerunner  of  the  diversion  which  took  place  through  the  Chicago 
Drainage  Canal  some  twenty-nine  years  later.  The  expense  of 
deepening  the  Illinois  and  Michigan  Canal  and  producing  a  gravity  flow 
was  borne  by  the  City  of  Chicago,  pursuant  to  legislative  authority  and 
power  granted  for  the  purpose  of  relieving  to  some  extent  the  filthy 
conditions  then  existing  in  the  Chicago  River  and  the  pollution  of  the 
Lake  Michigan  water  supply  because  of  the  discharge  of  sewage  into 
the  Lake  by  way  of  this  stream. 

Under  the  Rivers  and  Harbor  Act  of  1875,  Colonel  J.  M.  McComb 
of  the  Corps  of  Engineers  of  the  United  States  Army,  made  a  report  to 
Congress  dated  January  25,  1875,  concerning  the  improvement  of  this 
waterway,  in  which  he  stated:  "The  improvement  of  the  Illinois  and 
Michigan  Canal  involves  the  further  cutting  down  of  the  summit  level 
and  enlarging  the  waterway  so  as  to  afford  an  unfailing  supply  of  water 
from  Lake  Michigan  for  the  improved  Illinois  River."  Subsequently, 
many  reports  were  made  by  the  United  States  Army  engineers  pursuant 
to  Rivers  and  Harbors  Acts  of  Congress  along  substantially  the  same 
lines. 

In  1884,  conditions  regarding  the  pollution  of  the  Chicago  River  and 
the  water  supply  having  grown  worse,  new  pumps  were  constructed 
and  put  in  operation  at  Bridgeport  to  withdraw  from  the  River  not 
less  than  60,000  cubic  feet  per  minute.  The  cost  of  installing  and 
operating  these  pumps  was  borne  by  the  City  of  Chicago  under  author- 
ity from  the  Illinois  State  Legislature. 

36 


Chicago  was  growing  so  rapidly  and  conditions  of  pollution  of  the 
water  supply  through  the  discharge  of  sewage  into  Lake  Michigan  both 
directly  and  by  way  of  the  Chicago  River  became  so  critical  that  the 
people  of  the  community  set  about  to  thoroughly  solve  the  problem  of 
sewage  pollution  and  water  supply.  A  Drainage  and  Water  Supply 
Commission  was  created,  composed  of  eminent  engineers.  This 
Commission  made  a  report  in  1887  which  led  to  the  creation  of  the 
Sanitary  District  in  1889,  the  construction  of  the  Main  Drainage  Canal, 
1892-1900,  and  the  diversion  of  water  from  Lake  Michigan  through  the 
Drainage  Canal  beginning  in  1900. 

Permits  for  Diversion  from  Lake  Michigan  at  Chicago 

The  maximum  run-off  of  the  Chicago  River  Drainage  Area  and  thus 
the  maximum  flow  of  the  Chicago  River,  was  estimated  and  considered 
to  be  at  the  time  the  Sanitary  District's  Main  Channel  was  projected, 
10,000  cubic  feet  of  water  per  second.  Thus  the  main  channel  of  the 
District  was  constructed  to  a  maximum  capacity  of  that  amount. 
Otherwise  it  would  not  at  all  times  keep  the  Chicago  River  reversed 
and  flowing  away  from  Lake  Michigan,  which  was  fundamentally 
necessary  in  order  to  prevent  pollution  of  the  water  supply  at  times  of 
heavy  rain. 

A  permit  was  issued  on  May  8,  1899,  by  the  Secretary  of  War  (Gen. 
Alger),  authorizing  and  permitting  the  Sanitary  District  to  open  the 
main  channel  which  had  theretofore  been  competed,  subject  to  two 
primary  conditions: 

(1)  If  Congress  should  act  in  the  premises  by  legislation, 
then  the  permit  should  have  no  further  force  or  effect. 

(2)  If  current  were  created  by  the  withdrawal  of  water  from 
Lake  Michigan  unreasonably  obstructive  to  navigation  in  the 
Chicago  River,  then  the  Secretary  of  War  reserved  the  right  to 
modify  it. 

There  has  been  no  action  of  Congress.  There  was,  however,  a 
current  created  in  the  Chicago  River  because  of  its  then  shallowness, 
narrowness  and  tortuousness,  being  only  17  feet  deep  and  less  than  100 
feet  wide  at  different  points.  For  this  reason  the  Secretary  of  War 
later  modified  the  original  permit  of  May  8,  1899,  reducing  the  amount 
of  the  withdrawal.  It  follows  that  had  there  been  no  current  created 
and  had  the  Chicago  River  Channel  been  as  wide  and  as  deep  as  it  was 
later  created,  there  would  have  been  no  modification  of  the  amount  of 
the  withdrawal,  and  the  Sanitary  District  would  be  now  withdrawing 
the  amount  of  water  that  it  asks  and  requires,  without  Federal  objection 
or  controversy. 

37 


However,  on  April  9,  1901,  because  of  objections  to  current  in  the 
Chicago  River  and  for  that  express  reason,  the  Secretary  of  War  modified 
the  original  permit  to  200,000  cubic  feet  per  minute  (3,333  C.  F.  S.). 
Various  other  modifications  were  made,  and  finally  in  1903  the  District 
was  directed  not  to  withdraw  more  than  250,000  cubic  feet  per  minute, 
or  4,167  cubic  feet  per  second. 

However,  while  these  modifications  of  the  original  permit  were 
being  made  because  of  objections  to  current  in  the  Chicago  River  by 
navigation  interests  there,  the  Sanitary  District,  pursuant  to  permits 
of  July  11,  1900,  and  permit  of  1902,  had  made  plans  for  the  deepening 
and  widening  of  the  Chicago  River  to  26  feet  in  depth  and  200  feet  in 
width  at  all  points.  Condemnation  proceedings  to  obtain  land  for  the 
widening  had  to  be  tried.  About  the  year  1903,  when  the  last  modifica- 
tion was  made,  the  District  commenced  the  work  of  deepening  and 
widening  the  River,  pursuant  to  the  Federal  permits,  in  order  to  create 
a  channel  of  such  flowage  capacity  that  a  current  would  not  be  created 
obstructive  to  navigation  by  taking  through  that  channel  water  from 
Lake  Michigan  required  to  operate  the  Main  Channel  to  its  full  capacity. 
This  work  extended  over  a  period  of  years  and  necessarily  required 
considerable  time  for  its  completion,  as  it  was  necessary  to  dredge  the 
entire  river  channel,  take  out  immense  quantities  of  earth  to  widen  the 
river,  re-place  old  center  pier  bridges  with  new  and  modern  type  bascule 
bridges.  So  the  work  did  not  reach  its  practical  completion  until  about 
the  year  1912.  'The  Chicago  River  improvement,  for  deepening  and 
widening  the  South  Branch  cost  the  Sanitary  District  $12,472,381.54. 

From  the  above  record  the  officials  of  the  Sanitary  District  were 
justified  in  assuming  that  the  restrictions  on  flow  through  the  Chicago 
River  were  made  only  in  the  interest  of  navigation  in  the  River;  and 
that  when  the  river  improvement  was  completed  which  would  permit 
the  maximum  flow  through  the  Chicago  River  with  a  current  of  not 
more  than  one  and  one-quarter  miles  per  hour,  this  improvement  could 
be  used  to  its  capacity.  Why  else  should  they  have  gone  ahead  with 
an  expenditure  of  twelve  and  a  half  millions  of  dollars  on  this  improve- 
ment? The  Chicago  River  as  it  was  twenty  years  ago  could  carry 
4,167  C.  F.  S.  without  an  excessive  current. 

The  reason  for  the  modification  of  the  original  permit  having  been 
removed,  it  was  necessarily  assumed  that  the  modification  would  have 
no  further  force  or  effect,  and  that  the  original  permit  as  to  its  full 
extent  would  be  recognized.  Therefore  the  Sanitary  District  on 
February  5,  1912,  made  application  to  the  Secretary  of  War  for  the 
withdrawal  of  the  modification  and  the  recognition  of  the  original 

38 


permit  by  again  issuing  one  for  the  withdrawal  of  10,000  cubic  feet  per 
second.  On  May  8,  1913,  the  Secretary  of  War,  however,  refused  on 
the  principal  ground  that  he  was  without  authority  to  authorize  any- 
thing that  would  amount  to  an  obstruction  to  navigation  and  Congress 
only  had  that  authority. 

Diversions  at  Niagara 

In  the  Boundary  Waters  Treaty  between  the  United  States  and 
Great  Britain,  ratified  May  5,  1910,  diversions  in  cubic  feet  per  second 
are  allotted  to  each  country  "of  the  waters  of  the  Niagara  River  above 
the  Falls  from  the  natural  course  and  stream  thereof"  as  follows: 

United  States  in  New  York  State 20,000 

Canada  in  Province  of  Ontario 36,000 

These  are  in  round  numbers  the  figures  that  were  recommended  by 
the  International  Waterways  Commission  in  the  negotiations  which 
preceded  the  making  of  the  Treaty.  This  Commission  had  recom- 
mended 18,500  c.  f.  s.  for  the  American  diversion  and  34,200  c.  f.  s. 
for  the  Canadian  diversion,  exclusive  of  the  diversion  for  the  Welland 
Canal  which  was  1,800  c.  f.  s. 

The  views  of  the  Dominion  of  Canada  in  regard  to  the  diversions  at 
Chicago  and  in  and  near  the  Niagara  River  is  given  in  a  report  of  the 
Canadian  Section  of  the  International  Commission,  dated  April  25, 
1906,  to  the  Minister  of  Public  Works.  The  following  are  extracts  from 
the  report : 

"At  Chicago,  the  Americans  have  built  a  drainage  canal  which,  when 
in  full  operation,  will  use  about  10,000  cubic  feet  of  water  per  second." 

"As  the  diversion  from  Lake  Michigan  to  the  Mississippi  River  is  of  a 
much  more  serious  character  than  the  temporary  diversions  from  the 
Niagara  River,  it  is  felt  that  the  amount  of  water  to  be  taken  on  the 
American  side  of  the  Niagara  River  should  be  limited  to  18,500  cubic  feet 
per  second." 

"If  our  proposal  is  carried  out  the  diversions  will  be  about  as  follows: 

DIVERSIONS  ON  THE  AMERICAN  SIDE 

Cubic  Feet 
Per  Second 

Niagara  Falls 18,500 

Chicago  drainage  canal 10,000 

Total 28,500 

DIVERSIONS  ON  THE  CANADIAN  SIDE  Cubic  Feet 

Per  Second 
Niagara  Falls  and  the  Niagara  Peninsula 36,000 

39 


"  Permanent  or  complete  diversions  of  such  waters  are  wrong  in  principle 
and  should  hereafter  be  absolutely  prohibited.  The  diversions  by  the 
Chicago  Drainage  Canal  should  be  limited  to  the  use  of  not  more  than 
10,000  cubic  feet  per  second." 

"This  would  give  an  apparent  advantage  to  Canadian  interests,  but, 
as  the  diversion  is  not  of  serious  injury  to  the  falls  and  does  not  materially 
affect  the  interests  of  navigation,  it  is  more  than  counterbalanced  by  the 
complete  diversion  of  10,000  cubic  feet  by  way  of  the  Chicago  Drainage 
Canal  to  the  Mississippi  River." 

In  response  to  a  communication  of  the  Secretary  of  State  Elihu 
Root,  the  American  Section  of  the  International  Commission  made  a 
report  dated  September  9,  1907.  in  which  it  quotes  from  its  report  of 
March  19,  1906,  as  follows: 

"If  the  Falls  are  to  be  preserved  it  must  be  by  mutual  agreement 
between  the  two  countries.  As  a  step  in  that  direction,  we  recommend 
that  legislation  be  enacted  which  shall  contain  the  following  provisions,  viz.: 

"(a)  The  Secretary  of  War  to  be  authorized  to  grant  permits  for 
the  diversion  of  28,500  cubic  feet  per  second,  and  no  more,  from  the 
waters  naturally  tributary  to  Niagara  Falls,  distributed  as  follows: 

Cubic  Feet 
Niagara  Falls  Hydraulic  Power  and  Manufacturing  Company  9,500 

Niagara  Falls  Power  Company 8,600 

Erie  Canal  or  its  tenants  (in  addition  to  lock  service) 400 

Chicago  Drainage  Canal 10,000 

"(b)  All  other  diversion  of  water  which  is  naturally  tributary  to 
Niagara  Falls  to  be  prohibited,  except  such  as  may  be  required  for 
domestic  use  or  for  the  service  of  locks  in  navigation  canals. 

"(c)  Suitable  penalties  for  violation  of  the  law  to  be  prescribed. 

"(d)  The  foregoing  prohibition  to  remain  in  force  two  years,  and 
then  to  become  the  permanent  law  of  the  land,  if,  in  the  meantime, 
the  Canadian  Government  shall  have  enacted  legislation  prohibiting 
the  diversion  of  water  which  is  naturally  tributary  to  Niagara  Falls 
in  excess  of  36,000  cubic  feet  per  second,  not  including  the  amounts 
required  for  domestic  use  or  for  the  service  of  locks  in  navigation 
canals.  It  is  assumed,  however,  that  an  understanding  upon  the  subject 
would  be  reached  by  treaty. 

"The  object  of  such  legislation  would  be  to  put  a  stop  to  further  deple- 
tion of  the  Falls,  and  at  the  same  time  inflict  the  least  possible  injury  upon 
the  important  interests  now  dependent  upon  this  water  power.  The  amount 
to  be  diverted  on  the  Canadian  side  has  been  fixed  with  a  view  to  allowing 
the  companies  on  that  side  the  amounts  for  which  they  now  have  works 
under  construction,  which  are: 

40 


Cubic  Feet 

Canadian  Niagara  Power  Company 9,500 

Ontario  Power  Company 12,000 

Electric  Development  Company 11,200 

Niagara  Falls  Park  Ry.  Co. 1,500 

Welland  Canal  or  its  tenants  (in  addition  to  lock  service) 1,800 

"One  of  the  effects  of  such  legislation  would  be  to  give  Canada  the 
advantage  of  diverting  7,500  cubic  feet  per  second  more  than  is  diverted 
in  the  United  States.  The  advantage  is  more  apparent  than  real,  since 
the  power  generated  on  the  Canadian  side  will  to  a  large  extent  be  trans- 
mitted to  and  used  in  the  United  States.  In  the  negotiation  of  a  treaty, 
however,  the  point  should  be  considered." 

The  International  Waterways  Commission  in  its  joint  report  of 
May  3,  1906,  addressed  to  the  Minister  of  Public  Works  of  Canada  and 
the  Secretary  of  War  of  the  United  States,  said  in  paragraphs  2  and  3 : 

(2)  "While  the  commission  are  not  fully  agreed  as  to  the  effect  of 
diversions  of  water  from  Niagara  Falls,  all  are  of  the  opinion  that  more 
than  36,000  cubic  feet  per  second  on  the  Canadian  side  of  the  Niagara 
River  or  on  the  Niagara  peninsula,  and  18,500  cubic  feet  per  second  on 
the  American  side  of  the  Niagara  River  including  diversions  for  power 
purposes  on  the  Erie  Canal,  cannot  be  diverted  without  injury  to  Niagara 
Falls  as  a  whole. 

(3)  "The  Commission,  therefore,  recommend  that  such  diversions, 
exclusive  of  water  required  for  domestic  use  or  the  service  of  locks  in 
navigation  canals,  be  limited  on  the  Canadian  side  to  36,000  cubic  feet  per 
second,  and  on  the  United  States  side  to  18,500  cubic  feet  per  second  (and 
in  addition  thereto,  a  diversion  for  sanitary  purposes  not  to  exceed  10,000 
cubic  feet  per  second,,  be  authorized  for  the  Chicago  Drainage  Canal),  and 
that  a  treaty  or  legislation  be  had  limiting  these  diversions  to  the  quantities 
mentioned." 

When  negotiations  were  in  progress  for  the  Treaty,  the  International 
Waterways  Commission  made  an  additional  joint  report,  dated  January 
4,  1907,  confined  specifically  to  the  diversion  in  the  Chicago  Drainage 
Canal.     Certain  significant  paragraphs  are  as  follows: 

(m)  "The  diversion  of  large  bodies  of  water  from  Lake  Michigan 
for  supplying  the  drainage  canal  has  not  been  authorized  by  Congress, 
but  there  appears  to  be  a  tacit  general  agreement  that  no  objection 
will  be  made  to  the  diversion  of  10,000  cubic  feet  per  second,  as  origin- 
ally planned." 

(r)  "The  diversion  of  10,000  cubic  feet  of  water  per  second  at 
Chicago  will  render  practicable  a  waterway  to  the  Mississippi  River, 
14  feet  deep.  Any  greater  depth  must  be  obtained  by  the  abstraction 
of  more  water  from  Lake  Michigan  and  at  the  expense  of  the  navigation 
interests  of  the  Great  Lakes  and  of  the  Saint  Lawrence  valley, 

41 


(s)  "The  effect  upon  Niagara  Falls  of  diverting  water  at  Chicago  is 
of  secondary  importance  when  considering  the  health  of  a  great  city 
and  the  navigation  interests  of  the  Great  Lakes  and  of  the  Saint 
Lawrence  valley,  but  it  is  proper  to  note  that  the  volume  of  the  Falls 
will  be  diminished  by  the  full  amount  diverted  at  Chicago. 

Boundary  Waters  Treaty 

The  International  Waterways  Commission  was  organized  by  joint 
action  of  the  Governments  of  Canada  and  the  United  States  for  the 
purpose  of  studying  all  questions  relating  to  boundary  waters  and 
making  investigations  as  to  and  reporting  upon  the  terms  of  a  Treaty  in 
contemplation  between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  as  to 
Canadian  boundary  waters.  The  Treaty  was  made  on  January  11, 
1909,  and  was  based  upon  the  reports  and  recommendations  of  the 
International  Waterways  Commission.  Not  only  the  facts  concerning 
the  making  of  the  Treaty,  but  a  reading  of  the  Treat v  itself  demonstrates 
this.     We  refer  to  some  of  the  provisions  of  the  Treaty. 

Article  II  of  the  Treaty  provides : 

"Each  of  the  high  contracting  parties  reserves  to  itself  or  to  the  several 
State  Governments  on  the  one  side,  and  the  Dominion  or  Provincial  Govern- 
ments on  the  other,  as  the  case  may  be,  subject  to  any  treaty  provisions 
now  existing  with  respect  thereto,  the  exclusive  jurisdiction  and  control 
over  the  use  and  diversion,  whether  temporary  or  permanent,  of  all  waters 
on  its  own  side  of  the  line  which  in  their  natural  channels  would  flow  across 
the  boundary  or  into  boundary  waters;  but  it  is  agreed  that  any  inter- 
ference with  or  diversion  from  their  natural  channel  of  such  waters  on 
either  side  of  the  boundary,  resulting  in  any  injury  on  the  other  side  of  the 
boundary  shall  give  rise  to  the  same  rights  and  entitle  the  injured  parties 
to  the  same  legal  remedies  as  if  such  injury  took  place  in  the  country  where 
such  diversion  or  interference  occurs;  but  this  provision  shall  not  apply  to 
cases  already  existing  or  to  cases  expressly  covered  by  special  agreement 
between  the  parties  hereto." 

Article  III  of  the  Treaty  provides : 

"It  is  agreed  that,  in  addition  to  the  uses,  obstructions,  and  diversions 
heretofore  permitted  or  hereafter  provided  for  by  special  agreement  between 
the  parties  hereto,  no  further  or  other  uses  or  obstructions  or  diversions, 
whether  temporary  or  permanent,  of  boundary  waters  on  either  side  of  the 
line,  affecting  the  natural  level  or  flow  of  the  boundary  waters  on  the  other 
side  of  the  line,  shall  be  made  except  by  authority  of  the  United  States  or 
the  Dominion  of  Canada  within  their  respective  jurisdictions  and  with 
the  approval,  as  hereinafter  provided,  of  a  joint  commission,  to  be  known 
as  the  International  Joint  Commission.  *  *  *  Nor  are  such  provisions 
intended  to  interfere  with  the  ordinary  use  of  such  waters  for  domestic 
and  sanitary  purposes." 

42 


Again,  in  Article  VIII  of  the  treaty,  it  is  provided : 

"The  following  order  of  precedence  shall  be  observed  among  the  various 
uses  enumerated  hereinafter  for  these  waters,  and  no  use  shall  be  permitted 
which  tends  materially  to  conflict  with  or  restrain  any  other  use  which  is 
given  preference  over  it  in  this  order  of  precedence: 

1.  Uses  for  domestic  and  sanitary  purposes; 

2.  Uses  for  navigation,  including  the  service  of  canals  for  the  purposes 

of  navigation ; 

3.  Uses  for  power  and  for  irrigation  purposes." 

The  treaty  expressly  carries  out  the  intention  of  its  framers  as  shown 
from  the  documents  above  mentioned.  The  Chicago  diversion  was 
recognized  and  protected  by  the  express  provisions  of  the  treaty  to  the 
full,  maximum  extent  of  the  diversion  claimed.  It  was  provided,  as 
stated,  that  existing  diversions  should  not  be  disturbed,  and  that  the 
consent  of  the  Canadian  Government  and  the  International  Joint 
Commission,  organized  by  the  treaty  should  not  be  required  for  diver- 
sions for  domestic  and  sanitary  purposes,  and  the  Chicago  diversion 
was  recognized  as  a  diversion  for  a  sanitary  purpose.  These  conclusions 
are  inevitable.  The  Canadian  section  of  the  International  Waterways 
Commission  expressly  recommended  a  diversion  to  the  extent  of  10,000 
second  feet. 

Congress  by  its  acts  has  shown  an  intention  to  itself  deal  with  this 
diversion. 

In  this  connection  we  wish  to  call  attention,  in  chronological  order, 
to  various  acts  and  joint  resolutions  of  Congress  passed  since  the 
drainage  channel  was  constructed: 

Act  of  Congress  of  March  3,  1899,  provided  (Laws  of  United  States 
relating  to  Improvement  of  Rivers  and  Harbors,  Vol.  2,  879) : 

"Illinois  River  and  Des  Plaines  River,  Illinois:  The  Secretary  of  War 
is  directed  to  appoint  a  board  of  three  engineers,  which  board  shall  make  a 
survey  and  estimates  of  cost  for  the  improvement  of  the  Upper  Illinois 
River  and  Lower  Des  Plaines  River,  in  Illinois,  with  a  view  to  the  extension 
of  navigation  from  the  Illinois  River  to  Lake  Michigan  at  or  near  Chicago; 
said  board  of  engineers  shall  report  the  estimates  of  cost  for  a  channel 
seven  feet  deep,  and  also  for  a  channel  eight  feet  deep,  throughout  said 
proposed  route;  said  survey  and  estimates  of  cost  shall  be  made  in  pursu- 
ance of  and  according  to  the  recommendations  in  report  of  January  twenty- 
seventh,  eighteen  hundred  and  ninety-seven." 

The  report  of  January  27,  1897,  referred  to  in  said  Act  of  Congress, 
among  other  things,  provides  (Rec.  Vol.  4,  2204) : 

"The  sanitary  district  of  Chicago  has  nearly  completed  a  canal  for 
drainage  purposes  from  Chicago  River  at  Robey  street  to  near  Lockport 
from  18  to  22  feet  in  depth  below  the  proposed  water  surface,  and  varying 

43 


in  width  from  160  feet  in  rock  to  more  than  200  feet  in  earth,  a  length  of 
28  miles,  which  may  be  made  available  as  part  of  any  enlarged  water-way 
over  the  route  in  question,  and  is  of  much  greater  dimensions  than  required 
by  any  commercial  canal  adapted  for  the  conditions  and  requirements 
of  present  or  prospective  traffic  by  water  between  Lake  Michigan  and  the 
region  along  the  water  courses  of  the  Mississippi  Valley.  To  comply  with 
the  law  of  the  State  of  Illinois  under  which  this  drainage  canal  is  con- 
structed —  it  has  been  constructed  of  a  capacity  to  discharge  600,000  cubic 
feet  per  minute  through  the  section  excavated  in  rock  and  300,000  cubic 
feet  per  minute  throughout  the  earth  section  —  the  law  requires  a  discharge 
of  20,000  cubic  feet  per  minute  for  each  100,000  inhabitants  of  the  drainage 
district  which  at  present  requires  more  than  300,000  cubic  feet  and  in  a 
few  years  will  require  the  full  600,000  cubic  feet  discharge  through  the 
canal.  The  taking  of  water  from  Lake  Michigan,  however,  for  drainage 
purposes  (or  rather  for  dilution  of  sewage)  has  not  yet  been  authorized 
by  Congress." 

The  Act  of  March  3,  1899,  also  contains  the  Sections  9,  10  and  12 
under  which  the  United  States  is  seeking  an  injunction  in  this  case. 
The  said  report  of  January  27,  1897,  was  specifically  referred  to,  and 
the  facts  stated  in  it  and  its  recommendations  relating  to  the  use  of  the 
main  channel  of  the  Sanitary  District  as  part  of  the  waterway  to  the 
Mississippi  River  and  the  Gulf  of  Mexico,  were  known  to  and  considered 
by  Congress.  The  use  of  the  Sanitary  District  works  for  the  with- 
drawal of  water  from  Lake  Michigan  to  the  maximum  amount  of 
600,000  cubic  feet  per  minute  or  10,000  cubic  feet  per  second,  is 
specifically  mentioned  in  the  report.  Congress  does  not  in  that  Act 
prohibit  nor  does  it  condemn  the  diversion,  but  recognizes  it  and  at 
least  treats  it  as  a  subject  for  Congressional  regulation,  and  not  one  for 
regulation  by  an  executive  officer. 

Act  of  Congress  of  June  6,  1900,  further  carrying  out  the  purpose  of 
said  Act  of  March  3,  1899,  provided  (Laws  of  United  States  relating  to 
improvement  of  Rivers  and  Harbors,  Vol.  2,  914) : 

"That  the  board  of  three  engineers,  appointed  by  the  Secretary  of  War, 
in  pursuance  of  a  paragraph  in  the  river  and  harbor  Act  approved  March 
third,  eighteen  hundred  and  ninety-nine,  to  make  a  survey  and  estimates 
of  cost  of  the  improvement  of  the  Upper  Illinois  River  and  the  Lower  Des 
Plaines  River  in  Illinois,  with  a  view  to  the  extension  of  navigation  from 
the  Illinois  River  to  Lake  Michigan  at  or  near  the  City  of  Chicago,  is  hereby 
authorized  to  report  the  estimates  of  cost  for  a  channel  ten  feet  deep,  and 
for  a  channel  twelve  feet  deep,  and  for  a  channel  fourteen  feet  deep  through 
said  proposed  route,  and  that  the  said  estimates  cover  and  include  a  proper 
connection  at  Lockport  with  the  sanitary  and  ship  canal  which  has  been 
constructed  by  the  sanitary  district  of  Chicago.  The  said  board  of  engineers 
is  also  further  authorized  to  make  a  survey  and  estimates  of  cost  for  the 
improvement  of  the  Lower  Illinois  River  from  the  end  of  said  proposed 
route  to  the  mouth  of  said  river,  for  channels  ten,  twelve,  and  fourteen  feet 

44 


deep,  respectively,  and  to  report  the  estimates  of  cost  thereof:  And  pro- 
vided further,  That  surveys  and  estimates  of  cost  shall  be  made  in  pursuance 
of  the  provisions  contained  in  the  Act  aforesaid." 

Act  of  Congress  of  June  13,  1902,  provided  (Laws  of  United  States 
relating  to  Improvement  of  Rivers  and  Harbors,  Vol.  2,  995) : 

"The  sum  of  two  hundred  thousand  dollars,  or  so  much  thereof  as  may 
be  necessary,  is  hereby  appropriated  for  making  such  surveys.,  examinations, 
and  investigations  as  may  be  required  to  determine  the  feasibility  of,  and 
to  prepare  and  report  plans  and  estimates  of  cost  of,  a  navigable  waterway 
fourteen  feet  in  depth  from  Lockport,  Illinois,  by  way  of  the  Des  Plaines 
and  Illinois  rivers,  to  the  mouth  of  said  Illinois  River,  and  from  the  mouth 
of  the  Illinois  River,  by  way  of  the  Mississippi  River,  to  Saint  Louis, 
Missouri." 

Section  4  of  the  same  act  provided  for  the  establishment  of  the 
International  Water-ways  Commission,  to  make  among  other  things  a 
study  and  report  to  Congress  upon  the  regulation  of  diversions  of  water. 
The  members  of  the  International  Water-ways  Commission  appointed 
under  said  Act,  were  to  act  in  conjunction  and  co-operation  with 
members  of  said  Commission  to  be  appointed  by  the  Government  of 
Canada.  Said  section  is  in  part  as  follows  (Laws  of  United  States 
relating  to  Improvement  of  Rivers  and  Harbors,  Vol.  2,  1007) : 

"That  the  President  of  the  United  States  is  hereby  requested  to  invite 
the  Government  of  Great  Britain  to  join  in  the  formation  of  an  international 
commission,  to  be  composed  of  three  members  from  the  United  States  and 
three  who  shall  represent  the  interests  of  the  Dominion  of  Canada,  whose 
duty  it  shall  be  to  investigate  and  report  upon  the  conditions  and  uses  of 
the  waters  adjacent  to  the  boundary  lines  between  the  United  States  and 
Canada,  including  all  of  the  waters  of  the  lakes  and  rivers  whose  natural 
outlet  is  by  the  River  Saint  Lawrence  to  the  Atlantic  Ocean;  also  upon 
the  maintenance  and  regulation  of  suitable  levels;  and  also  upon  the  effect 
upon  the  shores  of  these  waters  and  the  structures  thereon,  and  upon  the 
interests  of  navigation,  by  reason  of  the  diversion  of  these  waters  from  or 
change  in  their  natural  flow;  and  further,  to  report  upon  the  necessary 
measures  to  regulate  such  diversion,  and  to  make  such  recommendations 
for  improvements  and  regulations  as  shall  best  subserve  the  interests  of 
navigation  in  said  waters.  The  said  Commissioners  shall  report  upon  the 
advisability  of  locating  a  dam  at  the  outlet  of  Lake  Erie,  with  a  view  to 
determining  whether  such  dam  will  benefit  navigation,  and  if  such  structure 
is  deemed  advisable,  shall  make  recommendations  to  their  respective 
Governments  looking  to  an  agreement  or  treaty  which  shall  provide  for  the 
construction  of  the  same,  and  they  shall  make  an  estimate  of  the  probable 
cost  thereof." 

No  other  inference  can  be  drawn  from  the  use  of  the  words 
"to  report  upon  the  necessary  measures  to  regulate  such  diversion,  and  to 
make  such  recommendation  for  improvements  and  regulations  as  shall  best 
subserve  the  interests  of  navigation  in  said  waters" 

45 


than  that  they  referred  to  the  Chicago  diversion  for  sanitary  purposes 
alone,  and  that  said  diversion  should  continue  as  the  paramount  use, 
the  use  for  navigation  being  subservient,  but  affected  as  little  as  possible 
by  said  diversion  after  proper  regulating  works  were  constructed. 

Resolution  of  April  21,  1904,  specifically  with  reference  to  the  crests 

of  the  dams  at  Kampsville  and  Lagrange  is  as  follows  (Laws  of  United 

States  relating  to  Improvement  of  Rivers  and  Harbors,  Vol.  2,  1049): 

"Resolved  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 

States  of  America  in  Congress  assembled,  That  the  Secretary  of  War  is 

hereby  authorized,  in  his  discretion,  with  the  concurrence  of  the  Chief  of 

Engineers,  to  permit  the  Sanitary  District  of  Chicago,  at  the  expense  of 

said  corporation,  to  lower  the  height  of  the  Government  dams  in  the  Illinois 

River  at  Kampsville  and  Lagrange,  Illinois,  in  accordance  with  such  plans 

as  he  may  prescribe  and  subject  to  such  stipulations  and  conditions  as,  in 

his  judgment,  may  be  necessary  to  protect  the  interests  of  the  United 

States." 

Act  of  Congress  of  June  29,  1906  provided  (Laws  of  United  States 
relating  to  Improvement  of  Rivers  and  Harbors,  Vol.  2,  1192) : 

"That  the  diversion  of  water  from  Niagara  River  or  its  tributaries,  in 
the  State  of  New  York,  is  hereby  prohibited,  except  with  the  consent  of 
the  Secretary  of  War  as  hereinafter  authorized  in  section  two  of  this  Act: 
Provided,  That  this  prohibition  shall  not  be  interpreted  as  forbidding  the 
diversion  of  the  waters  of  the  Great  Lakes  or  of  Niagara  River  for  sanitary 
or  domestic  purposes,  or  for  navigation,  the  amount  of  which  may  be  fixed 
from  time  to  time  by  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  or  by  the  Secretary 
of  War  of  the  United  States  under  its  direction." 

The  foregoing  Act  related  to  the  preservation  of  Niagara  Falls, 
which  was  being  injured  primarily  by  the  use  of  the  waters  of  the 
Niagara  River  for  the  development  of  water  power.  If  the  Rivers  and 
Harbors  Act  of  March  3,  1899,  under  which  the  Government  is  seeking 
an  injunction  here,  authorized  the  Secretary  of  War  to  regulate 
diversions  of  water,  there  would  have  been  no  occasion  for  the  passage 
of  this  Act,  for  the  Secretary  of  War  could  have  regulated  or  limited 
diversions  of  water  from  the  Niagara  River  for  water  power  purposes 
under  the  '99  Act  as  well  as  under  the  Act  just  quoted.  Congress  care- 
fully by  the  proviso  mentioned,  indicates  its  intention  that,  under  no  cir- 
cumstances, not  even  for  .the  preservation  of  the  scenic  beauty  of  the 
Falls,  shall  the  diversion  at  Chicago  for  domestic  and  sanitary  pur- 
poses be  affected,  except  as  Congress  may  thereafter  fix  the  amount. 
The  words 

"or  by  the  Secretary  of  War  of  the  United  States  under  its  direction," 
mean  that  the  Secretary  of  War  may  be  thereafter  directed  how  to 
fix  that  diversion.     These  words  absolutely  negative  the  idea  that  the 
Secretary  of  War  was  then  authorized  under  any  Act  of  Congress  to 

46 


fix  the  amount  of  the  diversion.  No  Act  has  been  passed  since  author- 
izing the  Secretary  of  War  to  limit  or  in  any  way  affect  the  diversion 
for  sanitary  purposes. 

Act  of  Congress  of  March  2,  1907,  provided  (Laws  of  United  States 
relating  to  Improvement  of  Rivers  and  Harbors,  Vol.  2,  1261) : 

"The  Secretary  of  War  may  appoint  a  board  of  five  members,  to  be 
composed  of  three  members  of  the  Mississippi  River  Commission,  one  of 
whom  shall  be  the  president  of  such  Commission,  and  two  engineer  officers 
of  the  United  States  Army,  to  examine  the  Mississippi  River  below  Saint 
Louis  and  report  to  Congress,  at  the  earliest  date  by  which  a  thorough 
examination  can  be  made,  upon  the  practicability  and  desirability  of  con- 
structing and  maintaining  a  navigable  channel  fourteen  feet  deep  and  of 
suitable  width  from  Saint  Louis  to  the  mouth  of  the  river,  either  by  the 
improvement  of  said  river  or  by  a  canal  or  canals  for  part  of  said  route.  In 
its  report  the  board  shall  cover  the  probable  cost  of  such  improvement,  the 
probable  cost  of  maintenance,  and  the  present  and  prospective  commerce 
of  said  waterway,  both  local  and  general,  upstream  as  well  as  downstream, 
and  the  said  board  may  consider  in  connection  with  the  examination  herein 
provided  for,  the  survey  of  a  proposed  waterway  from  Chicago  to  Saint 
Louis,  heretofore  reported." 

Act  of  Congress  of  March  3,  1909  provided  (Laws  of  United  States 
relating  to  Improvement  of  Rivers  and  Harbors,  Vol.  2,  1335) : 

"The  President  of  the  United  States  is  respectfully  requested  to  open 
negotiations  with  the  Government  of  Great  Britain  for  the  purpose  of 
effectually  providing  by  suitable  treaty  with  said  Government,  for  main- 
taining ample  water  levels  for  the  uses  of  navigation  in  the  Great  Lakes 
and  the  waters  connected  therewith,  by  the  construction  of  such  controlling 
and  remedial  works  in  the  connecting  rivers  and  channels  of  such  lakes  as 
may  be  agreed  upon  by  the  said  governments  under  the  provisions  of  said 
treaty." 

Joint  resolution  of  Congress  relating  to  the  said  Act  of  June  29,  1906, 
for  the  preservation  of  Niagara  Falls,  was  passed  March  3,  1909,  and  is 
as  follows  (Laws  of  United  States  relating  to  Improvement  of  Rivers 
and  Harbors,  Vol.  2,  1354) : 

"Whereas  the  provisions  of  the  Act  entitled  'An  Act  for  the  control  and 
regulation  of  the  waters  of  Niagara  River,  for  the  preservation  of  Niagara 
Falls,  and  for  other  purposes,'  approved  June  twenty-ninth,  nineteen 
hundred  and  six,  will  expire  by  limitation  on  June  twenty-ninth,  nine- 
teen hundred  and  nine;  and 

"Whereas  a  date  for  the  termination  of  the  operation  of  said  Act  was 
provided  therein,  but  with  a  view  to  the  more  permanent  settlement  of  the 
questions  involved  by  a  treaty  with  Great  Britain  and  by  further  legislation 
appropriate  to  the  situation,  and  such  treaty  not  having  been  negotiated, 
it  is  desirable  that  the  provisions  of  said  Act  should  be  continued  until  such 
permanent  settlement  can  be  made;  Therefore  be  it  Resolved  by  the  Senate 
and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States  of  America  in  Congress 
assembled,  That  the  provisions  of  the  aforesaid  Act  be,  and  they  are  hereby, 

•      '  47 


extended  for  two  years  from  June  twenty-ninth,  nineteen  hundred  and 
nine,  being  the  date  of  the  expiration  of  the  operation  of  said  Act,  save 
in  so  far  as  any  portion  thereof  may  be  found  inapplicable  or  already 
complied  with." 

Act  of  Congress  of  June  25,  1910  provided  (Laws  of  United  States 
relating  to  Improvement  of  Rivers  and  Harbors,  Vol.  2,  1420) : 

"For  the  construction  of  a  waterway  from  Lockport,  Illinois,  by  way 
of  the  Des  Plaines  and  Illinois  rivers  to  the  mouth  of  said  Illinois  River, 
one  million  dollars.  The  Secretary  of  War  shall  appoint  a  board  of  five 
members,  to  be  composed  of  four  engineer  officers  of  the  army  and  one  civil 
engineer  taken  from  civil  life.  The  president  of  the  board  of  five  members 
authorized  under  Act  of  March  second,  nineteen  hundred  and  "seven,  to 
examine  the  Mississippi  River  below  Saint  Louis  and  report  to  Congress  on 
the  project  of  a  fourteen-foot  channel,  shall  be  a  member  of  and  president 
of  the  board  herein  provided  for.  Said  board  shall  report  upon  the  feasibility 
of  such  waterway,  and  the  most  advisable  depth  and  dimensions  therefor, 
in  case  the  same  is  recommended;  also  upon  such  measures  as  may  be 
required  to  properly  preserve  the  levels  of  the  Great  Lakes  and  to  com- 
pensate, so  far  as  practicable,  for  the  diminished  level  in  said  lakes  and 
the  connecting  waters  thereof  by  reason  of  any  diversion  of  water  from 
Lake  Michigan  for  the  maintenance  of  the  proposed  waterway  herein 
described,  or  diversion  for  any  other  purpose;  and  further,  also,  upon  the 
influence  on  volume  and  height  of  waters  in  the  Mississippi  River  below 
Cairo." 

Joint  resolution  of  Congress  passed  August  22,  1911  provided  (Laws 
of  United  States  relating  to  Improvement  of  Rivers  and  Harbors,  Vol. 
2,  1505) : 

11  Resolved  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America  in  Congress  assembled,  That  the  provisions  of  an  Act 
entitled  'An  Act  for  the  control  of  the  waters  of  Niagara  River,  for  the 
preservation  of  Niagara  Falls,  and  for  other  purposes,'  be  and  they  are 
hereby,  extended  and  re-enacted  from  June  twenty-ninth,  nineteen  hundred 
and  eleven,  being  the  date  of  the  expiration  of  the  operation  of  said  Act, 
to  March  first,  nineteen  hundred  and  twelve." 

Act  of  Congress  of  August  24,  1912  provided  (Laws  of  United  States 
relating  to  Improvement  of  Rivers  and  Harbors,  Vol.  2,  1568)  : 

"Survey  of  Northern  and  Northwestern  Lakes:  For  survey  of 
northern  and  northwestern  lakes,  including  all  necessary  expenses  for 
preparing,  correcting,  extending,  printing  and  issuing  charts  and  bulletins, 
and  of  investigating  lake  levels,  with  a  view  to  their  regulation,  $125,000." 

Joint  resolution  of  Congress  passed  June  30,  1917  (Report  on 
Diversion  of  Water  from  Great  Lakes  and  Niagara  River,  Page  13),  is 
as  follows: 

"Resolved  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America  in  Congress  assembled,  That  public  resolution  numbered 
forty-five  of  the  Sixty-fourth  Congress,  approved  January  19,  1917,  entitled 
'Joint  resolution  authorizing  the  Secretary  of  War  to  issue  permits  for 

48 


additional  diversion  of  water  from  the  Niagara  River,'  is  continued  in  full 
force  and  effect,  and  under  the  same  conditions,  restrictions,  and  limitations, 
until  July  1,  1918:  Provided,  That  the  Secretary  of  War  is  hereby  author- 
ized and  directed  to  make  a  comprehensive  and  thorough  investigation, 
including  all  necessary  surveys  and  maps,  of  the  entire  subject  of  water 
diversion  from  the  Great  Lakes  and  the  Niagara  River,  including  naviga- 
tion, sanitary  and  power  purposes,  and  the  preservation  of  the  scenic  beauty 
of  Niagara  Falls  and  the  rapids  of  Niagara  River,  and  to  report  to  Congress 
thereon  at  the  earliest  practicable  date.  To  carry  out  the  provisions  of 
this  proviso  there  is  hereby  appropriated,  out  of  any  money  in  the  Treasury 
not  otherwise  appropriated,  the  sum  of  $25,000." 

It  is  dear  that  Congress,  by  its  own  acts  and  by  the  Treaty  of  1909 
with  reference  to  Canadian  boundary  waters,  has  considered  the 
diversion,  as  the  International  Waterways  Commission  did,  a  part  of 
and  necessary  to  the  vital,  physical  and  commercial  development  of  that 
region  6f  the  United  States  surrounding  the  Great  Lakes.  One  of  the 
conditions  of  every  permit  issued  to  the  Sanitary  District  with  reference 
to  the  opening  of  its  channel  and  the  improvement  of  the  Chicago  River 
was,  that  the  Secretary  of  War  intended  to  place  the  matter  before 
Congress,  and  that  congressional  action  should  nullify  the  permit.  It 
appears  in  the  record  that  the  Secretary  of  War  did  make  those  reports; 
that  Congress  has  done  nothing  in  the  way  of  condemning  the  operation 
of  the  Sanitary  District  works,  but,  on  the  contrary,  has  sought  to 
utilize  such  works  for  navigation  purposes  and  to  preserve  the  levels  of 
the  lakes  with  the  diversion  existing,  if  such  diversion  has  any  effect 
upon  such  levels.  It  must  be  borne  in  mind,  in  this  connection,  that 
the  effect  of  10,000  cubic  seconds  feet  diversion  at  Chicago  does  not 
exceed  the  effect  of  diversions  from  the  Niagara  River  and  Lake  Erie 
made  by  water  power  interests  and  others.  So,  it  is  apparent  that 
Congress  has  sought,  and  is  seeking  to  provide  facilities  for  navigation 
with  the  diversions  existing.  At  least  it  has  not  yet  considered  it 
necessary  to  prohibit  them.  The  non-action  of  Congress,  under  the 
circumstances,  must  necessarily  be  considered  as  an  assent. 

In 

Corrigan   Transit   Co.   v.    Sanitary   District,    137   Fed.    851, 
C.  C.  A.,  Seventh  Circuit,  857. 
the  Court  said: 

"but  if  the  matter  is  local,  and  concerns  the  public  policy  of  a  state,  though 
it  may  incidentally  affect  interstate  and  foreign  commerce,  congressional 
inaction  is  a  recognition  that  the  subject  is  fitted  for  local  regulation,  and 
is  an  invitation  that  the  state  continue  in  the  unimpeded  exercise  of  its 
police  powers,  on  the  understanding,  however,  that  Congress  may  there- 
after intervene  to  the  extent,  at  least,  of  destroying  and  forbidding  whatever 
unnecessarily  embarrasses  commerce." 

49 


Navigation  as  to  depths  provided  by  Congress 

All  critical  points  of  navigation  have  been  improved  by  deepening 
since  the  drainage  canal  was  opened,  January  17th,  1900,  to  certain 
depths  provided  by  acts  of  Congress.  The  depths  provided  by  Congress 
have  always  been  exceeded,  and  at  no  time  has  the  water  been  of  less 
depth  than  the  project  depth  fixed  under  the  acts  of  Congress.  In 
the  year  1911  the  surface  elevations  of  the  lakes  were  lower  than  in  any 
year  since  the  opening  of  the  drainage  channel.  It  is  only  .vessels 
Carrying  ore  which  can  possibly  be  injured.  The  following  is  a  table, 
marked  Table  I,  which  shows  the  movement  of  iron  ore  for  the  year 
1921  as  taken  from  Government  reports — that  is,  the  amount  shipped 
from  ports,  and  the  amount  received  at  different  ports : 

TABLE  I. 
TABLE  SHOWING  MOVEMENT  OF  IRON  ORE  DURING  1921. 

HARBORS: 

Shipments —  Net  Tons. 

Duluth,  Minn 33,771,582 

Ashland,  Minn , 8,969,306 

Agate  Bay,  Minn 10,391,879 

Marquette,  Mich 3,409,393 

Escanaba,  Mich 351,285 

Total 56,893,445 

Receipts — 

Milwaukee,  Wis 144,500 

Calumet,  111 7,275,558 

Indiana  Harbor,  Ind 1,426,983 

Rouge  River,  Mich 910,987 

Huron,  Ohio 1,534,615 

Lorain,  Ohio 4,508,600 

Cleveland,  Ohio 8,957,165 

Fairport,  Ohio 1,397,719 

Ashtabula,  Ohio 12,351,940 

Conneaut,  Ohio. . 6,708,534 

Erie,  Pa 2,484,897 

Buffalo,  N.  Y 8,577,923 

Tonawanda,  N.  Y 602,695 

Miscellaneous 11,329 

Total 56,893,445 

50 


Table  II,  which  follows,  shows  the  project  depths  at  critical  points 
of  navigation,  and  also  in  harbors  shipping  or  receiving  iron  ore.  This 
table  also  shows  the  depth  of  water  at  the  points  mentioned  according 
to  the  mean  of  a  sixty-two  year  period — from  1860  to  1921,  and  at  the 
mean  stage  for  the  lowest  month  of  the  navigation  season  of  the  low 
water  year  of  1911. 

TABLE  II. 

COMPARISON  OF  DEPTHS  IN  CERTAIN  CHANNELS  AND  HARBORS  AT 
SUNDRY  ELEVATIONS  OF  THE  WATERS  OF  LAKES-  MICHIGAN,  HURON, 
ERIE  AND  SUPERIOR. 


7 

O  O  o> 

3  a  o 
^3  a, 

03 

o 

GO"* 

P> 

0  2. 
g-* 

£2, 

Actual     depths     assuming 
water   surfaces  at  mean 
for  62-year  period  1860- 
1921. 

O 
Z% 

P 
<T> 

to 

I—" 

i> 

S3 
13 

c 

0 

o  ._, 

*  3 

rt>  h- 

> 
O 
P 

c 

O 
<-»-<& 
5-g- 
3  tr 
Ul™ 

2p 

w  <rh 
o 
3  >-. 

•     CD 

p3 
p  p 

2  to" 
$  p 

Depths  for  lowest  month 
for  1911  navigation  sea- 
son.      Lowest    monthly 
Mean. 

Feet 

Feet 

Feet 

Feet 

Feet 

Feet 

20.00 

22.32 

21.70 

20.73 

20.87 

20.39 

21.00 

23.52 

23.31 

22.33 

22.47 

21.99 

20.00 

21.79 

21.63 

21.00 

21.28 

20.43 

20.00 

21.79 

21.63 

21.00 

21.28 

20  43 

19.00 

21.63 

20.60 

20.10 

20.23 

19.87 

21.00 

23.63 

22.60 

22.10 

22.23 

21.87 

21.00 

23.63 

22.60 

22.10 

22.23 

21.87 

•  21.00 

23.52 

23.31 

22.33 

22.47 

21.99 

21.00 

23.52 

23.31 

22.33 

22.47 

21.99 

19.00 

21.52 

21.31 

20.33 

20.47 

19.99 

20.00 

22.52 

22.31 

21.33 

21.47 

20.99 

19.00 

21.52 

21.31 

20.33 

20.47 

19.99 

19.00 

21.52 

21.31 

20.33 

20.47 

19.99 

20.00 

22.52 

22.31 

21.33 

21.47 

20.99 

20.00 

22.52 

22.31 

21.33 

21.47 

20.99 

20.00 

22.52 

22.31 

21.33 

21.47 

20.99 

21.00 

23.52 

23.31 

22.33 

22.47 

21.99 

578.50 

581.13 

580.10 

579.60 

579.73 

579.37 

570.00 

572.52 

572.31 

571.33 

571.47 

570.99 

600.50 

602.29 

602.13 

601.50 

601.78 

600.95 

CHANNELS: 

St.  Clair  Flats  Canal.  .  . 
Livingston  Channel 

HARBORS:  LAKE 

Duluth,  Minn Superior 

Ashland,  Wis Superior 

Milwaukee,  Wis Michigan 

Calumet,  111 Michigan 

Indiana  Harbor,  lad.. .  .  Michigan 

Rouge  River,  Mich Detroit  River 

Toledo,  Ohio Erie 

Huron,  Ohio Erie 

Lorain,  Ohio Erie 

Cleveland,  Ohio Erie 

Fairport,  Ohio Erie 

Ashtabula,  Ohio Erie 

Conneaut,  Ohio Erie 

Erie,  Penna Erie 

Buffalo,  N.  Y Erie 

ELEVATIONS: 

Lake  Michigan 

Lake  Erie 

Lake  Superior. 


51 


APPENDIX    "B" 


THE   WITHDRAWAL   OF   WATER   FROM   THE   GREAT   LAKES 
SYSTEM  BY  THE  SANITARY  DISTRICT  OF  CHICAGO 


A  Review  by  Francis  C.  Shenehon,  Consulting  Engineer 


DECEMBER,  1921 

(1)  Introductory. — This  review  is  intended  as  a  discussion  of 
the  elements  entering  into  the  long-standing  differences  between  the 
State  of  Illinois  and  the  Federal  Government  concerning  the  withdrawal 
of  water  from  Lake  Michigan  by  The  Sanitary  District  of  Chicago. 
It  purposes  to  state  some  facts  and  to  examine  the  equities  of  each  of 
these  sovereign  entities.  These  equities  are  not  necessarily  technical 
legal  rights.  They  show  different  aspects  when  viewed  from  the  navi- 
gational standpoint,  the  water  power  standpoint  and  the  sanitary 
standpoint.  The  writer  in  his  thirty  years'  study  of  Great  Lakes 
problems  has  served  as  engineer  for  the  United  States,  for  Hydraulic 
Power  Company  at  Niagara  Falls  and  some  years  now  for  The  Sanitary 
District  of  Chicago.  Some  advantage  in  clear  apprehension  comes  from 
the  many  viewpoints  occupied.  On  all  hydraulic  questions  his  attitude 
is  the  same  now  as  when  he  testified  as  expert  engineer  for  the  United 
States.  His  unchanged  earlier  conclusions  are  incorporated  in  this 
review  so  far  as  these  are  pertinent.  The  review  is  not  for  use  in  a  law 
court;  it  is  understood  that  the  evidence  is  closed.  It  is  intended 
rather  as  an  attempt  to  work  out  a  constructive  basis  of  understanding 
for  the  composing  of  differences.  It  is  obvious  that  a  discussion  of 
this  kind  can  carry  no  conviction  unless  its  fairness  is  above  reproach. 
An  ex  parte  argument  will  defeat  the  very  purpose  of  the  review,  and 
will  therefore  be  of  little  service  to  the  State  of  Illinois  or  to  the  Federal 
Government. 

(2)  The  State  of  Illinois. — In  speaking  of  the  political  sub- 
division comprised  of  the  City  of  Chicago  and  the  neighboring  cities, 
towns  and  communities,  incorporated  and  known  as  The  Sanitary 
District  of  Chicago,  it  will  serve  several  purposes  to  keep  in  mind  the 

53 


more  comprehensive  parental  entity  of  the  State  of  Illinois.  The 
Sanitary  District  is  merely  a  child  or  agency  of  the  State,  doing  certain 
things  under  enabling  and  mandatory  laws  of  the  state.  The  trustees 
can  not  diminish  the  volume  of  flow  in  the  Drainage  Canal  without 
violating  existing  state  laws.  The  real  disagreement  arises  from  a 
conflict  of  a  state  statute  and  federal  authority.  A  larger  conception 
of  the  parties  in  interest  visualizes  one  as  the  State  of  Illinois — not  the 
transient  Trustees  of  the  Sanitary  District — and  the  other  as  the 
Federal  Government — not  the  transient  Secretaries  of  War.  Perhaps 
the  composition  of  differences  will  be  on  a  higher  plane  when  changing 
fallible  individualities  are  eliminated  from  the  equation  and  two  per- 
manent sovereign  entities  meet.  The  sanitary  phase,  which  includes 
tolerable  inoffensiveness  in  the  Illinois  River,  touches  the  life  and 
health  of  the  people  of  the  state  for  the  full  300-mile  length  of  the  river. 
The  navigational  phase  comprehends  a  canalized  stream  beginning  at 
Lake  Michigan  in  the  northern  part  of  the  State  and  terminating  toward 
the  southern  end  of  the  State.  The  Drainage  Canal  is  an  essential  link 
in  this  navigational  route,  for  the  construction  of  which  the  people  of 
the  State  of  Illinois  have  voted  authority  to  issue  bonds  in  the  sum  of 
Twenty  Millions  of  Dollars  to  be  expended  with  Federal  approval  and 
collaboration. 

(3)  Obstruction  to  Navigation. — The  uncompensated  diversion 
of  10,000  cubic  feet  of  water  at  Chicago  will  actually  lower  the  level 
substantially  5^2  inches  of  Lakes  Michigan,  Huron,  St.  Clair,  Erie  and 
Ontario,  and  the  appurtenant  rivers,  St.  Marys,  St.  Clair,  Detroit  and 
the  Upper  St.  Lawrence.  This  lower  surface  level  will  actually  and 
practically  constitute  an  obstruction  to  navigation  by  compelling  the 
big  lake  freighters  to  carry  a  cargo  less  by  400  or  500  tons  than  these 
freighters  would  carry  in  the  absence  of  the  diversion  of  10,000  cubic 
second  feet.  This  should  be  understood  as  substantially  accurate  in 
measure  of  damage  and  a  positive  result  of  uncompensated  diversion. 
It  should  be  understood  than  this  statement  as  to  damage  is  simply  a 
substantial  reiteration  of  the  writer's  testimony  as  an  engineering  expert 
of  the  United  States  in  the  case  of  the  United  States  vs.  The  Sanitary 
District.  It  can  not  be  viewed  as  an  admission  by  The  Sanitary 
District  itself  to  be  used  in  any  court. 

(4)  Water  Power. — The  diversion  of  10,000  cubic  feet  per  second 
of  water  at  Chicago  lessens  the  flow  in  the  Niagara  and  St.  Lawrence 
Rivers  by  the  same  amount,  diminishing  permanently  the  water  power 
content  of  these  streams.  This  volume  of  10,000  cubic  feet  per  second 
of  water  entering  the  Drainage  Canal  at  Chicago  adds  permanently  the 
same  amount  to  the  water  power  content  of  the  Des  Plaines,  Illinois 

54 


and  Mississippi  Rivers,  but  the  water  power  is  less  utilizable  under 
present  commercial  conditions.  It  is  conceivable  that  fifty  or  a  hundred 
years  hence  this  inherent  potential  energy  or  a  substantial  part  of  it 
may  be  commercially  utilized.  The  potential  energy  in  a  cubic  foot  of 
water  in  Lake  Michigan  is  just  the  same  whether  it  is  destined  to  reach 
tide  water  in  the  Gulf  of  St.  Lawrence  or  in  the  Gulf  of  Mexico.  In 
citing  this  axiom,  it  should  be  Understood  that  the  writer  is  fully  cog- 
nizant of  the  water  power  difficulties  in  the  Mississippi  River  below 
St.  Louis,  due  to  wide  range  in  volume  of  flow,  flat  slopes  and  foundation 
conditions.  The  intent  is  to  look  fifty  or  a  hundred  years  into  the 
future — when  water  power  may  be  fully  utilized  on  the  Niagara  and 
St.  Lawrence  Rivers.  The  present  situation  on  these  rivers  is  one  of 
waste  and  non-use. 

(5)  Regulation. — With  the  same  positiveness  with  which  the  ex- 
tent of  navigational  damage  in  the  Great  Lakes  System  is  set  down  in 
paragraph  3,  it  must  be  stated  that  the  lakes  and  rivers  can  be  safely 
and  certainly  restored  by  compensating  works,  regulating  works  or  by 
both.  The  engineering  feasibility  of  safely  and  with  certainty  restoring 
lake  and  river  levels  is  accepted  by  the  Federal  Government.  The 
Sanitary  District  has  the  legal  authority  from  the  State  of  Illinois  to 
finance  works  which  will  accomplish  this  restoration  and  is  ready  to 
place  in  the  hands  of  the  Federal  Government  funds  representing  its 
fair  share  of  the  reasonable  cost  of  adequate  works  for  this  purpose. 
In  this  matter  The  Sanitary  District  does  not  impose  regulating  works 
of  a  particular  type.  It  will  collaborate  in  any  scheme  which  the 
United  States  Engineers  may  suggest  and  will  design  for  comparison 
and  study  various  types  of  regulating  works.  Provided  the  plans  of 
The  Sanitary  District,  those  already  proposed  or  others  still  to  be 
designed,  are  carried  out,  The  Sanitary  District  guarantees  satisfactory 
operation  and  full  results. 

(6)  Restoration. — Assuming  that  adequate  regulating  works  are  in 
operation  and  that  the  levels  of  the  lakes  and  rivers  concerned  are 
substantially  restored  from  the  foot  of  the  locks  in  St.  Mary's  River  to 
Montreal,  then  The  Sanitary  District  may  no  longer  be  regarded  as  a 
national  and  international  offender  against  the  navigation  of  the  Great 
Lakes  over  the  channels  mentioned.  Under  the  scheme  of  regulation 
which  the  writer  has  demonstrated  in  his  Report  on  the  Regulation  of 
the  Niagara  and  St.  Lawrence  Rivers,  Chicago  becomes  a  benefactor 
to  navigation  in  the  lower  St.  Clair  River,  Lake  St.  Clair,  the  Detroit 
River  and  in  Lake  Erie — the  most  critical  and  densely  navigated  waters 
of  the  Great  Lakes  System — and  in  Lake  Ontario  and  the  St.  Lawrence 
River  above  the  Galops  Rapids.     If  the  United  States  Engineers  feel 

55 


that  the  restoration  of  the  channel  depths  from  Buffalo  to  Sault  Ste. 
Marie  as  proposed  is  in  anyway  incomplete,  such  modifications  or 
amplifications  of  the  restoration  will  be  made.  The  Sanitary  District 
will  cooperate  to  the  extent  of  designing  other  types  of  regulating  works 
with  a  view  to  still  greater  navigational  betterments  in  Lake  Erie,  with 
backwater  reflections  to  Lakes  Huron  and  Michigan  and  in  St.  Mary's 
River. 

(7)  Legal  Aspect. — In  this  review  the  rigid  legal  aspect  as  be- 
tween the  State  of  Illinois  and  the  Federal  Government  seems  a  minor 
consideration.  The  composing  of  differences  appears  to  be  more  in 
the  nature  of  the  working  out  of  a  modus  vivendi  between  a  state  and 
its  colleagues.  Illinois  must  assume  a  cooperative  attitude  and  the 
Federal  Government  must  forego  any  attitude  of  reprisal.  A  niggardly 
attitude  on  the  part  of  Illinois  is  just  as  censurable  as  a  disciplinary 
attitude  on  the  part  of  the  Federal  Government.  No  poverty  on  the 
part  of  the  people  of  The  Sanitary  District  of  Chicago  exists  which  can 
prevent  them  from  paying  full  measure  for  any  benefit  received  at  the 
expense  of  neighboring  states — or  from  paying  full  measure  to  undo 
any  damage  that  may  accrue.  And  no  desire  exists  in  the  central 
government  to  deal  other  than  magnanimously  and  constructively  in 
solving  this  problem.  The  legal  aspect  however,  as  between  the  State 
of  Illinois  and  the  Dominion  of  Canada  must  remain  a  rigid  element 
in  the  solution  of  the  problem.  This  will  be  discussed  in  succeeding 
paragraphs. 

(8)  Litigation. — The  existing  temporary  permit  of  The  Sanitary 
District  is  for  4,167  cubic  feet  of  water  per  second  and  was  issued  in 
1901.  Since  that  time  repeated  applications  for  permission  to  divert 
larger  amounts  of  water  have  failed.  In  1907  an  application  for 
authority  to  construct  a  branch  canal  from  Calumet  to  the  Main  canal 
at  Sag,  and  to  withdraw  through  it  4,000  cubic  feet  of  water  per  second, 
was  denied.  Meanwhile  the  actual  diversion  of  water  considerably 
exceeded  the  permitted  amount,  the  diversion  keeping  step  with  the 
Illinois  statute  requirements.  In  1908  suit  was  begun  by  the  Attorney 
General  of  the  United  States  to  enjoin  the  reversal  of  The  Calumet 
River  flow;  and  in  1913  a  second  suit  was  begun  to  enjoin  any  diversion 
from  Lake  Michigan  in  excess  of  the  Federal  permit.  The  two  suits 
were  consolidated  and  tried.  Judge  Landis  deferred  a  decision  through 
the  war  period,  but  rendered  an  oral  opinion  in  June,  1920,  sustaining 
the  contentions  of  the  United  States.  Attorneys  for  The  Sanitary 
District  were  granted  a  hearing  on  a  modification  of  the  proposed 
injunction.  This  hearing  has  not  yet  been  concluded.  Obviously 
action  by  Congress  will  operate  to  terminate  all  litigation. 

56 


(9)  Congressional  Authority. — In  refusing  to  issue  a  permit  fot 
any  larger  diversion  by  The  Sanitary  District  both  Secretary  of  War 
Taft  and  Secretary  of  War  Stimson  expressed  the  opinion  that  the 
wide-reaching  effects  of  this  diversion,  national  and  international, 
removed  the  question  of  flow  in  excess  of  4,167  cubic  second  feet  beyond 
the  jurisdiction  of  an  officer  of  the  Federal  Government.  The  authority 
must  come  from  Congress.  In  the  case  of  the  United  States  vs.  The 
Sanitary  District  counsel  for  the  United  States  urged  that  under  exist- 
ing law  the  courts  could  not  give  relief.  Again  it  was  a  matter  for 
Congress  to  determine.  In  this  review  it  is  assumed  that  the  Congress 
of  the  United  States  will  enact  into  law  the  limit  of  diversion,  and 
impose  certain  conditions  on  the  permitted  diversion.  These  conditions 
will  pertain  to:  The  financing  of  compensating  and  regulating  works 
to  restore  lake  levels,  a  definite  fixed  program  of  construction  of  purifi- 
cation works,  limitations  of  current  in  the  Chicago  River,  supervision 
of  diversion  by  the  Secretary  of  War  with  a  nominal  charge  for  such 
supervision,  limitations  on  variation  of  volume  of  flow,  perhaps  a 
limitation  of  the  period  of  such  diversion,  with  provision  for  recapture 
at  the  end  of  such  period,  or  for  a  renewal  for  a  second  period,  following 
the  provisions  of  the  Federal  Water  Power  Act.  The  adjustment 
between  a  state  and  its  colleagues  may  be  worked  out  in  a  more  mag- 
nanimous way  by  a  law-making  body  than  by  a  Federal  Secretary  with 
limited  powers  or  by  a  court  dependent  upon  precedent  legal  decisions 
crystallized  in  an  earlier  period,  when  sanitary  needs  or  water  power 
possibilities  were  trivial  compared  to  the  tremendous  visible  economic 
structure  of  water-borne  commerce. 

(10)  Pollution — It  must  be  clearly  kept  in  mind  that  the  sewage 
and  wastes  of  a  population  of  three  million  people  are  pouring  day  and 
night  into  the  Drainage  Canal  and  that  in  the  very  nature  of  things 
this  prodigious  volume  of  effluent  cannot  take  any  other  route  than 
through  the  divide.  It  is  unthinkable  that  the  disease-producing 
content  of  the  sewer  outflow  should  be  diffused  in  Lake  Michigan  and 
mix  with  the  drinking  water  of  the  people.  It  is  unthinkable  that  it 
can  stagnate  in  the  Chicago  River  or  in  the  Drainage  Canal.  No 
Trustee  of  the  Sanitary  District,  no  officer  of  the  State  of  Illinois, 
no  Secretary  of  War  would  have  the  temerity  or  conscience  to  close  the 
gates  at  Lockport.  Partial  closing  of  the  gates  with  lesser  flow  than 
the  ratio  of  the  Illinois  Statute — 1,000  cubic  feet  per  second  for  each 
300,000  of  tributary  population — is  practicable  at  great  expense  with  ex- 
tensive sewage  purification,  and  complete  purification  of  the  water 
supply.  But  even  partial  throttling  of  the  present  flow,  averaging 
9,000  cubic  feet  per  second,  must  await  the  construction  of  substitute 

57 


sanitary  devices.  Without  these  extensive  sanitary  devices  in  use, 
restriction  to  the  permitted  flow  of  4,167  cubic  second  feet  would  mean 
vast  life  hazards.  The  evil  results  include  unwholesome  conditions  in 
the  Chicago  River,  the  Drainage  Canal  and  the  Illinois  River — with 
accumulating  putrid  sludge  beds,  insufficient  oxygen,  long  germ  life 
and  stench.  Under  exceptional  rainfall  and  runoff  in  the  watershed 
tributary  to  the  Drainage  Canal  the  contaminated  waters  may  reach 
the  water  supply  of  Chicago  and  its  neighboring  cities.  To  what  extent 
this  effusion  of  sewage  into  the  Lake  may  be  mitigated  by  temporary 
emergency  flow  of  10,000  cubic  feet  per  second  is  as  yet  an  unsolved 
problem.  Tests  made  by  the  Sanitary  District  engineers  indicate  an 
inertia  in  the  canal  flow,  which  makes  a  change  of  flow  from  4r167  to 
10,000  cubic  feet  per  second  a  matter  of  many  hours.  With  6,800 
cubic  feet  diversion  per  second  under  present  population  conditions  the 
stench  and  the  menace  would  be  less.  With  the  present  diversion  of 
9,000  cubic  feet  per  second,  the  lower  canal. and  Illinois  River  conditions 
are  such  as  to  make  that  volume  of  flow  an  irreducible  minimum.  With 
the  present  volume  of  sewage  and  wastes  the  Illinois  River  needs 
more  water  rather  than  less  water.  In  the  end  of  course  with  more 
extensive  purification,  the  volume  of  diversion  water  is  dependent  on 
population  and  the  extent  of  this  purification. 

(11)  No  Diversion — Had  the  City  of  Chicago  been  located  on 
the  Lake  Michigan  shore  with  no  possibility  of  recourse  to  sewage 
disposal  through  some  southward-bound  stream  like  the  Illinois  River, 
some  other  solution  of  its  sewage  disposal  problem  and  its  water  supply 
problem  would  have  been  entirely  practicable,  just  as  the  problems  of 
Duluth,  Milwaukee,  Cleveland  and  Toronto  are  being  solved.  Widely 
separated  water  supply  intakes  and  sewer  outlets,  with  sewage  treat- 
ment and  complete  water  supply  purification  may  yield  excellent 
results.  The  City  of  Chicago  must  treat  its  water  supply  even  with  a 
diversion  of  10,000  cubic  feet  per  second  in  the  Drainage  Canal.  The 
sanitary  hazard  of  using  untreated  water  from  Lake  Michigan  is  not 
worth  while.  The  presence  of  organic  matter,  of  storm-created  roiling 
and  of  disease  germs  from  vessels  is  probable  enough  to  make  water 
treatment  desirable  or  imperative.  And  sewage  treatment  or 
purification  must  go  on  with  increasing  intensity  and  magnitude,  to 
care  for  trade  wastes  and  the  ever-increasing  population.  It  is  not 
improbable  that  at  some  future  time  the  fertilizer  value  of  the  sewage 
may  warrant  the  complete  separation  of  the  solids.  After  a  period  of 
further  use  of  its  present  vastly  expensive  sewage-dilution  project  a 
new  generation  may  properly  finance  absolute  sewage  purification 
plants. 

58 


(12)  Permitted  Diversion — No  claim  can  be  substantiated  that 
The  Sanitary  District  of  Chicago  with  its  authorized  flow  of  4,167  is 
not  better  off  than  such  cities  as  Cleveland,  Milwaukee  and  Toronto, 
which  have  no  diversion  canals  to  carry  their  sewage  effluent  outside 
the  lake  from  which  their  drinking  water  comes.  The  problems  of 
these  cities  must  be  solved  by  rendering  innocuous  their  sewage  and 
wastes  and  purifying  their  water  supply  also.  The  Sanitary  District 
of  Chicago  must  eventually  do  both.  It  is  a  question  of  allowing  the 
three  million  people  of  the  Sanitary  District  to  utilize  their  great 
100-Million-Dollar  investment.  No  suggestion  on  the  part  of  the 
Federal  Government  has  been  made  that  the  Drainage  Canal  as  a 
sanitary  device  should  be  superannuated,  to  be  written  off  the  books  as 
obsolescent.  No  need  whatever  of  doing  this  for  the  good  of  navigation 
will  exist  when  regulating  works  are  installed.  No  need  of  this  now 
exists  for  water  power,  because  at  Niagara  only  635,570  horsepower 
out  of  two  million  or  more  available  is  in  present  actual  use,  and  on  the 
St.  Lawrence  River  four  million  horsepower  is  running  to  waste. 
Navigational  needs  and  water  power  needs  are  the  only  two  external 
reasons  for  curtailing  below  10,000  cubic  second  feet  the  volume  of 
diversion  in  the  Drainage  Canal.  Regulation  in  part  at  the  expense 
of  The  Sanitary  District  of  Chicago  will  care  for  navigation  and  make 
it  better  than  before;  ultimate  economy  in  water  power  may  become 
urgent  in  a  half  century;  it  is  not  urgent  or  existent  in  the  Great  Lakes 
System  now.  It  would  be  an  economic  blunder  to  throttle  the  flow  in 
the  Drainage  Canal  for  the  purpose  of  water  power  conservation  as 
long  as  the  present  conditions  are  perpetuated  at  Niagara  Falls  and  on 
the  St.  Lawrence  River. 

(13)  Waste  at  Niagara  Falls — Taking  the  normal  flow  of  the 
Niagara  River  as  200,000  cubic  second  feet  (after  diverting  10,000 
cubic  second  feet  at  Chicago)  and  the  full  fall,  Chippewa-Grass  Island 
to  Queens  ton-Lewis  ton,  as  313  feet,  and  assuming  an  overall  efficiency 
on  the  busses  of  80  per  cent,  each  cubic  foot  of  water  yields  28.5  horse- 
power. Taking  the  usable  amount  of  water  for  power  purposes  as 
70,000  cubic  feet  per  second,  the  practicable  energy  releasable  is  roundly 
two  million  electrical  horsepower.  This  leaves  4,625,000  water  horse- 
power to  vitalize  the  scenic  grandeur  of  the  river  and  falls.  But  of  this 
practicably  available  power  only  635,570  horsepower  is  now  used. 
To  secure  this  electric  horsepower,  50,886  cubic  feet  per  second  are 
taken  from  the  flow  over  the  Cataracts,  and  an  average  of  12.5  horse- 
power per  cubic  foot  of  water  used  is  secured.  Assuming  for  the  gross 
fall,  Chippewa-Grass  Island  Pool  to  Maid  of  Mist  Pool,  220  feet,  and  a 
practicable  overall  efficiency  of  80  per  cent,  each  cubic  foot  of  water 

59 


used  should  yield  20  electrical  horsepower.  Out  of  the  water  used  in 
this  one  major  descent  from  above  the  Cataracts  Rapids  to  the  Gorge, 
a  total  of  432,531  electrical  horsepower  is  wasted.  It  should  be  added 
that  the  now  nearly  completed  development  of  the  Hydro-electric 
Power  Commission  of  Ontario  will  divert  an  additional  10,000  cubic 
feet  per  second,  secure  the  full  fall  of.  313  feet  between  Chippewa  and 
Queenston  and  develop  294,000  electrical  horsepower.  (See  Warren 
Report,  1921,  p.  225.)  No  use  whatever  of  the  mill  pond  capacity  of 
Lake  Erie  has  yet  been  made  to  augment  the  water  power  volume  at 
Niagara  Falls.  No  use  has  been  made  of  supplemental  hydraulic  and 
electric  installations  to  take  advantage  of  Niagara  River  flow  in  excess 
of  a  volume  of  200,000  cubic  feet  per  second. 

(14)  Canadian  Navigation — So  far  as  obstructions  to  navigation 
have  existed  since  1900  due  to  diversions  of  Lake  Michigan  water  at 
Chicago,  these  are  as  real  in  Canadian  channels  and  harbors  as  in  the 
waters  of  the  United  States.  However,  as  Canadian  commerce  is 
relatively  small,  the  aggregate  damage  is  not  serious.  Canada  will  not 
file  other  than  perfunctory  objections  and  she  will  not  claim  damage 
to  navigation  through  the  Sanitary  District's  diversion  of  10,000 
cubic  feet  per  second.  This  is  confidently  stated  for  many  reasons: 
Canada  remembers  appreciatively  the  Lock  of  1855  at  Sault  Ste. 
Marie,  built  by  the  State  of  Michigan  with  Federal  aid;  she  remembers 
that  until  1895,  or  for  forty  years,  the  free  use  of  the  ship  lock  of  the 
State  of  Michigan  and  those  of  the  United  States  gave  her  ingress  to 
Lake  Superior  and  made  useful  the  terminals  at  Port  Arthur  and  Fort 
William;  she  remembers  that  for  the  past  thirty  years  her  vessels 
passed  through  the  St.  Marys,  St.  Clair  and  Detroit  Rivers  in  channels 
dredged  by  the  United  States,  which  are  six  feet  deeper  than  the  earlier 
channels;  Canada  remembers  this  six  feet  added  to  vessel  drafts  rather 
than  the  few  inches  subtracted;  Canada  remembers  also  that  she 
herself  has  not  been  entirely  blameless  in  the  matter  of  lowering  of  the 
levels  of  Lake  Erie  and  the  Niagara  River  through  diversions  for  power 
purposes  in  the  Welland  Canal  and  at  Niagara  Falls;  Canada  bears  in 
mind  also  that  the  Sanitary  District  has  proposed  to  share  in  the 
undoing  of  any  damage  to  navigable  waters  from  Sault  Ste.  Marie  to  the 
head  of  Galops  Rapids,  while  some  of  her  colleagues  in  lake  lowering 
are  silent.  The  writer  hastens  to  add  that  he  believes  that  the  United 
States  remembers  the  magnificent  flight  of  locks  in  the  Welland  Canal 
(and  their  enlargement)  and  the  series  of  canals  from  the  head  of  the 
Galops  Rapids  to  the  foot  of  the  Lachine  Rapids  in  the  St.  Lawrence 
River;  and  that  Canada  has  doubtless  spent  as  much  money  in  her 
canalization  projects  as  the  United  States  has  in  all  its  Great  Lakes 

60 


improvements.  To  square  things  the  writer  must  add  as  a  contribution 
of  the  United  States  toward  navigation — the  Panama  Canal.  Finally, 
Canada  remembers  the  provisions  of  the  Treat}'  of  1910. 

(15)  Uncompensated  Waters — The-  scheme  of  restoration  of 
water  surface  levels  proposed  by  the  Sanitary  District  includes  all 
waters  above  the  head  of  the  Galops  Rapids,  or  in  the  discretion  of  the 
United  States  and  Canada,  the  foot  of  Rapide  Plat,  if  that  is  selected 
as  the  best  location  for  regulating  works.  The  problem  of  the  restoration 
of  the  Niagara  River  between  Buffalo  and  the  head  of  the  Cataract 
Rapids  appears  to  belong  rightfully  to  the  power  companies  of  Niagara 
Falls  as  offenders-in-chief  and  beneficiaries  of  the  restoration  as  well. 
The  canalization  of  the  St.  Lawrence  River  for  ocean  drafts  will  create 
slackwater  pools  widely  different  in  levels  from  the  natural  surfaces  of 
the  present  river  throughout  the  rapids  section.  The  elevations  of 
these  various  pools  are  arbitrary  and  do  not  involve  the  diversion  at 
Chicago.  At  and  below  Montreal  the  lowering  of  the  St.  Lawrence 
River  surface  is  believed  to  be  too  little  to  take  cognizance  of.  By 
over-restoring  or  bettering  lake  and  river  levels  in  Lake  Erie,  the 
Detroit  River,  Lake  St.  Clair  and  the  lower  St.  Clair  River,  and  in 
Lake  Ontario  and  the  upper  St.  Lawrence  River,  the  Sanitary  District 
will  have  a  credit  toward  a  trivial  lack  of  restoration  in  the  lower  St. 
Lawrence. 

(16)  Canadian  Water  Power — It  has  been  shown  at  length  that, 
when  compensating  and  regulating  works  are  constructed,  in  part  at 
the  expense  of  the  Sanitary  District,  no  real,  tangible,  substantial 
damage  to  navigation  will  remain.  At  Niagara  Falls,  two  other  elements 
of  damage  will  emerge  when  the  time  arrives  to  use  every  foot  of  water 
fully  and  efficiently.  These  two  elements  are  scenic  grandeur  and 
water  power.  If  the  Sanitary  District  diversion  is  charged  to  water 
power,  no  encroachment  is  then  made  on  scenic  grandeur.  That  is 
eliminated  from  consideration.  It  is  a  safe  prediction  that  the  vast 
water  power  content  of  the  St.  Lawrence  River  and  the  great  additional 
water  power  content  of  the  Ottawa  River  and  various  streams  in  the 
Province  of  Quebec,  safeguard  for  all  possible  use  the  regional  or 
transmissible  needs  for  more  than  half  a  century.  It  was  this  Vast, 
scarcely-touched  richness  in  water  resources  that  made  the  adjustments 
at  Niagara  Falls,  as  incorporated  in  the  Treaty  of  1910,  an  excellent 
bargain  for  the  Dominion  of  Canada.  It  will  be  shown  in  a  succeeding 
paragraph  that  by  the  terms  of  this  treaty,  Canada  with  its  lesser 
population  and  its  lesser  water  contribution  to  the  volume  of  Niagara 
River  flow,  secured  over  64  per  cent  of  the  water  allotted  to  power 

61 


purposes  and  the  United  States  less  than  36  per  cent.  This  strange, 
obviously  disproportionate  division  is  understandable  only  when  the 
precedent  facts  are  visible. 

(17)  Before  the  Treaty — The  treaty  between  the  United  States 
and  Great  Britain  proclaimed  May  13,  1910,  was  based  on  certain 
recommendations  made  by  the  International  Waterways  Commission 
in  its  joint  report  of  May  3,  1906,  addressed  to  the  Minister  of  Public 
Works  of  Canada  and  the  Secretary  of  War  of  the  United  States. 
Paragraphs  2  and  3  of  this  joint  report  read: 

(2)  "While  the  commission  are  not  fully  agreed  as  to  the  effect  of 
diversions  of  water  from  Niagara  Falls,  all  are  of  the  opinion  that  more 
than  36,000  cubic  feet  per  second  on  the  Canadian  side  of  the  Niagara 
river  or  on  the  Niagara  peninsula,  and  18,500  cubic  feet  per  second  on  the 
American  side  of  the  Niagara  river,  including  diversions  for  power  purposes 
on  the  Erie  canal,  cannot  be  diverted  without  injury  to  Niagara  falls  as 
a  whole. 

(3)  "The  Commission,  therefore,  recommend  that  such  diversions, 
exclusive  of  water  required  for  domestic  use  or  the  service  of  locks  in  navi- 
gation canals,  be  limited  on  the  Canadian  side  to  36,000  cubic  feet  per 
second,  and  on  the  United  States  side  to  18,500  cubic  feet  per  second  (and 
in  addition  thereto,  a  diversion  for  sanitary  purposes  not  to  exceed  10,000 
cubic  feet  per  second,  be  authorized  for  the  Chicago  Drainage  Canal), 
and  that  a  treaty  or  legislation  be  had  limiting  these  diversions  to  the 
quantities  mentioned." 

This  joint  report  was  accelerated  by  the  then  Secretary  of  State, 
Elihu  Root,  in  a  letter  to  the  Secretary  of  War,  William  H.  Taft,  which 
was  referred  to  the  International  Waterways  Commission.  The 
following  is  an  extract  from  the  letter : 

"The  negotiation  relating  to  a  treaty  on  this  subject  has  been  suspended 
awaiting  the  further  report  of  the  commission,  in  accordance  with  the 
statements  to  which  I  have  referred.  There  are  many  indications  of  active 
public  interest  in  the  subject,  and  a  joint  resolution  having  in  view  the 
preservation  of  the  falls,  pending  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  has 
been  favourably  reported  by  the  Committee  on  Rivers  and  Harbors.  The 
indications  are  that  if  an  agreement  can  presently  be  reached  between 
the  two  countries  as  to  the  action  necessary  to  accomplish  the  purpose, 
any  legislation  to  give  the  agreement  effect  on  the  part  of  the  American 
authorities  would  receive  favourable  consideration  at  the  present  session 
of  Congress  and  at  the  present  session  of  the  New  York  legislature. 

"It  seems  desirable,  therefore,  to  press  forward  the  negotiations  for  such 
an  agreement  without  any  avoidable  delay.  May  I  ask  you  to  make  such 
a  report  upon  the  subject  as  may  furnish  a  basis  upon  which  the  State 
Department  and  the  ambassador  may  take  and  proceed  with  the  negotia- 
tions?" 

The  report  of  the  International  Commission  followed. 

62 


(18)  Before  the  Joint  Report — The  Dominion  view  of  the 
diversions  at  Chicago  and  in  and  near  the  Niagara  River  is  given  in  a 
report  of  the  Canadian  Section  of  the  International  Commission,  dated 
April  25,  1906,  to  the  Minister  of  Public  Works.  The  following  are 
extracts  from,  the  report : 

"At  Chicago,  the  Americans  have  built  a  drainage  canal  which,  when 
in  full  operation,  will  use  about  10,000  cubic  feet  of  water  per  second." 

'As  the  diversion  from  Lake  Michigan  to  the  Mississippi  River  is  of  a 
much  more  serious  character  than  the  temporary  diversions  from  the 
Niagara  River,  it  is  felt  that  the  amount  of  water  to  fje  taken  on  the 
American  side  of  the  Niagara  River  should  be  limited  to  18,500  cubic  feet 
per  second." 

"If  our  proposal  is  carried  out  the  diversions  will  be  about  as  follows: 
DIVERSIONS   ON  THE  AMERICAN  SIDE 

CUBIC   FEET 
PER   SECOND 

Niagara  Falls 18,500 

Chicago  drainage  canal 10,000 

Total 28,500 

DIVERSIONS  ON  THE  CANADIAN  SIDE 

CUBIC   FEET 
PER    SECOND 

Niagara  Falls  and  on  the  Niagara  peninsula 36,000 

"Permanent  or  complete  diversions  of  such  waters  are  wrong  in  principle 
and  should  hereafter  be  absolutely  prohibited.  The  diversions  by  the 
Chicago  drainage  canal  should  be  limited  to  the  use  of  not  more  than 
10,000  cubic  feet  per  second." 

"This  would  give  an  apparent  advantage  to  Canadian  interests,  but  as 
the  diversion  is  not  of  serious  injury  to  the  falls  and  does  not  materially 
affect  the  interests  of  navigation,  it  is  more  than  counterbalanced  by  the 
complete  diversion  of  10,000  cubic  feet  by  way  of  the  Chicago  drainage 
canal  to  the  Mississippi  River." 

The  two  reports  referred  to  in  paragraphs  17  and  18,  including 
the  letter  of  Secretary  of  State  Elihu  Root,  dated  February  13,  1906, 
are  printed  on  pages  333  to  313,  inclusive,  of  the  volume  entitled: 


63 


CANADA 

Compiled  Reports 
of  the 

International  Waterways  Commission 
1905-1913 

Printed  by  Order  of  Parliament 
Ottawa— 1914 

In  response  to  a  comm.unication  of  the  Secretary  of  State  Elihu 
Root,  the  American  Section  of  the  International  Commission  made  a 
report  dated  September  9,  1907,  in  which  it  quotes  from  its  report  of 
March  19,  1906,  as  follows: 

"If  the  falls  are  to  be  preserved  it  must  be  by  mutual  agreement  be- 
tween the  two  countries.     As  a  step  in  that  direction,  we  recommend  that 
legislation  be  enacted  which  shall  contain  the  following  provisions,  viz: — 
"(a)     The  Secretary  of  War  to  be  authorized  to  grant  permits  for 
the  diversion  of  28,500  cubic  feet  per  second,  and  no  more,  from  the 
waters  naturally  tributary  to  Niagara  Falls,  distributed  as  follows: 

CUBIC   FEET 

Niagara  Falls  Hydraulic  Power  and  Manufacturing  Com- 
pany     9,500 

Niagara  Falls  Power  Company 8,600 

Erie  Canal  or  its  tenants  (in  addition  to  lock  service) 400 

Chicago  Drainage  Canal 10,000 

"(b)  All  other  diversion  of  water  which  is  naturally  tributary  to 
Niagara  Falls  to  be  prohibited,  except  such  as  may  be  required  for 
domestic  use  or  for  the  service  of  locks  in  navigation  canals. 

"(c)     Suitable  penalties  for  violation  of  the  law  to  be  prescribed. 

"(d)  The  foregoing  prohibition  to  remain  in  force  two  years, 
and  then  to  become  the  permanent  law  of  the  land,  if,  in  the  meantime, 
the  Canadian  Government  shall  have  enacted  legislation  prohibiting 
the  diversion  of  water  which  is  naturally  tributary  to  Niagara  Falls 
in  excess  of  36,000  cubic  feet  per  second,  not  including  the  amounts 
required  for  domestic* use  or  for  the  service  of  locks  in  navigation 
canals.  It  is-  assumed,  however,  that  an  understanding^upon  the 
subject  would  be  reached  by  treaty. 

"The  object  of  such  legislation  would  be  to  put  a  stop  to  further  deple- 
tion of  the  falls,  and  at  the  same  time  inflict  the  least  possible  injury  upon 
the  important  interests  now  dependent  upon  this  water  power.  The 
amount  to  be  diverted  on  the  Canadian  side  has  been  fixed  with  a  view  to 
allowing  the  companies  on  that  side  the  amounts  for  which  they  now  have 
works  under  construction,  which  are: 

64 


CUBIC   FEET 

Canadian  Niagara  Power  Company 9,500 

Ontario  Power  Company 12,000 

Electric  Development  Company 1 1,200 

Niagara  Falls  Park  Railway  Company 1,500 

Welland  Canal  or  its  tenants  (in  addition  to  lock  service) 1,800 

"One  of  the  effects  of  such  legislation  would  be  to  give  Canada  the 
advantage  of  diverting  7,500  cubic  feet  per  second  more  than  is  diverted 
in  the  United  States.  The  advantage  is  more  apparent  than  real,  since 
the  power  generated  on  the  Canadian  side  will  to  a  large  extent  be  trans- 
mitted to  and  used  in  the  United  States.  In  the  negotiation  of  a  treaty, 
however,  the  point  should  be  considered." 

(See  pages  610  to  611,  Canadian  Compilation). 

It  will  be  observed  that  both  the  Chicago  diversion  and  that  in  the 
Welland  Canal  are  specifically  mentioned.  It  will  appear  later  that 
neither  is  specifically  mentioned  in  the  Treaty,  but  each  is  authorized 
in  general  terms.  The  total  quantities  here  recommended,  excluding 
the  diversion  at  Chicago  and  in  the  Welland  Canal,  are: 

United  States 18,500 

Canada 34,200 

(19)  Subsequent  Report — When  negotiations  were  in  progress 
for  the  Treaty,  the  International  Waterways  Commission  made  an 
additional  joint  report,  dated  January  4,  1907,  confined  specifically  to 
the  diversion  in  the  Chicago  Drainage  Canal.  Certain  significant 
paragraphs  are  as  follows : 

(m)  "The  diversion  of  large  bodies  of  water  from  Lake  Michigan 
for  supplying  the  drainage  canal  has  not  been  authorized  by  Congress, 
but  there  appears  to  be  a  tacit  general  agreement  that  no  objection 
will  be  made  to  the  diversion  of  10,000  cubic  feet  per  second,  as 
originally  planned." 

(r)  "The  diversion  of  10,000  cubic  feet  of  water  per  second  at 
Chicago  will  render  practicable  a  waterway  to  the  Mississippi  river, 
14  feet  deep.  Any  greater  depth  must  be  obtained  by  the  abstraction 
of  more  water  from  Lake  Michigan  and  at  the  expense  of  the  naviga- 
tion interests  of  the  Great  Lakes  and  of  the  St.  Lawrence  valley. 

(s)  "The  effect  upon  Niagara  Falls  of  diverting  water  at  Chicago 
is  of  secondary  importance  when  considering  the  health  of  a  great 
city  and  the  navigation  interests  of  the  Great  Lakes  and  of  the  St, 
Lawrence  valley,  but  it  is  proper  to  note  that  the  volume  of  the  falls 
will  be  diminished  by  the  full  amount  diverted  at  Chicago." 

RECOMMENDATIONS 
(41)  "The  waters  of  Lake  Michigan  in  the  United  States,  the  waters 
of  Georgian  Bay  in  Canada,  and  the  waters  of  Lake  Superior  partly  in  the 
United  States  and  partly  in  Canada,  all  form  sources  of  supply  of  the  Great 
Lakes  system,  finding  their  way  by  the  St.  Lawrence  to  the  sea.  All  are 
interdependent  and  there  can  be  no  diversion  from  any  of  them  without 

65 


injury  to  the  whole  system.  By  Article  XXVI  of  the  treaty  of  1871  it  is 
provided  that  'navigation  of  the  River  St.  Lawrence,  ascending  and  de- 
scending from  the  forty-fifth  parallel  of  north  latitude,  where  it  ceases  to 
form  the  boundary  between  the  two  countries,  from,  to  and  into  the  sea, 
shall  forever  remain  free  and  open  for  the  purposes  of  commerce  to  the 
citizens  of  the  United  States,  subject  to  any  laws  and  regulations  of  Great 
Britain,  or  of  the  Dominion  of  Canada,  not  inconsistent  with  such  privileges 
of  free  navigation.'  It  is  desirable  that  in  any  treaty  arrangement  the 
waters  of  Lake  Michigan,  Georgian  bay,  and  all  other  waters  forming  part 
of  the  Great  Lakes  system  should  be  declared  to  be  'forever  free  and  open 
for  the  purposes  of  commerce'  to  the  citizens  of  the  United  States  and  the 
subjects  of  His  Britannic  Majesty,  subject  to  any  laws  and  regulations  of 
either  country  not  inconsistent  with  such  privilege  of  free  navigation. 

(42)  "The  preservation  of  the  levels  of  the  Great  Lakes  is  imperative. 
The  interest  of  navigation  in  these  waters  is  paramount,  subject  only  to 
the  right  of  use  for  domestic  purposes,  in  which  term  is  included  necessary 
sanitary  purposes.  In  our  report  of  November  15,  1906,  upon  the  appli- 
cation of  the  Minnesota  Canal  and  Power  Company  to  divert  certain 
waters  in  Minnesota  we  recommend,  among  other  things — 'that  any 
treaty  which  may  be  entered  into  should  define  the  uses  to  which  inter- 
national waters  may  be  put  by  either  country  without  the  necessity 
of  adjustment  in  each  instance,  and  would  respectfully  suggest  that  such 
uses  should  be  declared  to  be  (a)  uses  for  necessary  domestic  and  sanitary 
purposes;  (b)  service  of  locks  for  navigation  purposes;  (c)  the  right  to 
navigate.'  It  is  our  opinion  that  so  far  as  international  action  is  concerned 
a  treaty  provision  of  that  kind  is  all  that  is  required  in  this  case.  We 
accordingly  renew  our  recommendation  of  November  15,  1906,  just  quoted. 

(43)  "A  careful  consideration  of  all  the  circumstances  leads  us  to  the 
conclusion  that  the  diversion  of  10,000  cubic  feet  per  second  through  the 
Chicago  River  will,  with  proper  treatment  of  the  sewage  from  areas  now 
sparsely  occupied,  provide  for  all  the  population  which  will  ever  be  tributary 
to  that  river,  and  that  the  amount  named  will  therefore  suffice  for  the 
sanitary  purposes  of  the  city  for  all  time.  Incidentally  it  will  provide  for 
the  largest  navigable  waterway  from  Lake  Michigan  to  the  Mississippi 
River,  which  has  been  considered  by  Congress. 

"We  therefore  recommend  that  the  Government  of  the  United  States 
prohibit  the  diversion  of  more  than  10,000  cubic  feet  per  second  for  the 
Chicago  Drainage  Canal." 

These  paragraphs  are  quoted  from,  pages  527  to  529  inclusive  of 
the  Canadian  Compilation  mentioned  in  Paragraph  18. 

(20)  The  Treaty — The  Boundary  Waters  Treaty  between  the 
United  States  and  Great  Britain  was  signed  at  Washington  January  11, 
1909,  and  ratifications  were  exchanged  May  5,  1910.  By  Article  V 
of  this  treaty  diversions  in  cubic  feet  per  second  are  allotted  to  each 
country  "of  the  waters  of  the  Niagara  River  above  the  Falls  from  the 
natural  course  and  stream  thereof"  as  follows: 

United  States  in  New  York  State 20,000 

Canada  in  Province  of  Ontario 36,000 

66 


It  is  obvious  that  these  round  numbers  of  cubic  feet  were  arrived  at 
from  the  recommendation  of  the  International  Commission,  as  set 
down  at  the  end  of  Paragraph  18  of  this  review,  as  follows: 


Country — 

United  States 

RECOMMENDED 

18,500 

ADD   TO 
ROUND    OUT 

1,500 
1,800 

TREATY 
20,000 

Canada 

34,200 

36,000 

It  should  be  explained  that  the  difference  between  these  figures  of 
the  American  Section  of  the  Commission  and  those  of  the  Canadian 
Section  hinges  on  the  estimated  amount  for  power  use  in  the  Welland 
Canal,  which  was  1,800  cubic  feet  per  second.  The  actual  amount 
used  in  the  Welland  Canal  for  power  purposes  is  3,365  cubic  feet  per 
second.  (See  Colonel  Warren's  Report,  1921,  page  198).  It  further 
appears  from  page  197  of  this  report  that  diversions  through  the  Welland 
Canal  for  power  purposes  have  substantially  increased  since  the  pro- 
claiming of  the  treaty  in  1910.  The  diversion  at  Chicago  and  the 
diversion  for  power  purposes  in  the  Welland  Canal  are  not  specifically 
mentioned.  Each  appears  to  be  authorized  by  the  general  terms  of  the 
Treaty.  The  Chicago  authorization  is  embraced  in  the  following 
provisions  of  the  Treaty: 

First. — Lake  Michigan  is  not  a  boundary  water — but  a  tributary  of 
boundary  waters.     (See  Preliminary  Article  and  Article  I). 

Second. — In  Article  II  the  diversion  from  water  tributary  to  boundary 
waters  is  permitted  subject  to  legal  remedies  for  injury  to  the  other  party, 
"but  this  provision  shall  not  apply  to  cases  already  existing."  The  Chicago 
Drainage  Canal  diversion  was  a  case  "already  existing"  in  fact. 

Third. — Article  III  refers  to  boundary  waters  and  does  not  include 
Lake  Michigan.  The  Welland  Canal  diversion  for  power  purposes  is 
authorized  as  "heretofore  permitted." 

(21)  Framing  the  Treaty — No  doubt  should  exist  as  to  the 
Treaty  authorization  of  a  10,000  cubic  feet  per  second  diversion  by  the 
Sanitary  District.  With  the  concurrence  of  the  American  Section  and 
of  the  Canadian  Section  separately  reported,  giving  detailed  illumination 
on  the  reasons  for  the  various  amounts  recommended,  and  with  the 
joint  report  of  the  International  Watenvays  Commission  before  them, 
is  it  reasonable  that  the  Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States  Elihu 
Root  and  the  Ambassador  of  Great  Britain  James  Bryce,  knowingly 
neglected  to  safeguard  the  public  interests  of  the  people  of  the  State  of 
Illinois,  while  carefully  safeguarding  the  private  corporations  of  the 
State  of  New  York  and  of  the  Province  of  Ontario^     If  on  the  other 

67 


hand  the  framers  of  the  Treaty  intended  to  protect  the  residents  of  The 
Sanitary  District  of  Chicago,  but  failed  to  give  this  intent  legal 
expression,  a  new  light  is  thrown  on  the  mentalities  of  Elihu  Root  and 
James  Bryce. 

(22)  Protection  of  Investments  —  The  first  paragraph  of 
Article  V  reads  as  follows : 

"The  High  Contracting  Parties  agree' that  it  is  expedient  to  limit  the 
diversion  of  waters  from  the  Niagara  River  so  that  the  level  of  Lake  Erie 
and  the  flow  of  the  stream  shall  not  be  appreciably  affected.  It  is  the 
desire  of  both  Parties  to  accomplish  this  object  with  the  least  possible 
injury  to  investments  which  have  already  been  made  in  the  construction 
of  power  plants  on  the  United  States  side  of  the  river  under  grants  of 
authority  from  the  State  of  New  York,  and  on  the  Canadian  side  of  the 
river  under  licenses  authorized  by  the  Dominion  of  Canada  and  the  Province 
of  Ontario." 

The  volumes  of  flow  made  permissible  under  the  treaty  considerably 
exceeded  the  amounts  necessary  to  protect  the  then  existing  invest- 
ments. Up  to  date,  August,  1919,  of  the  Warren  Report,  neither  the 
merged  American  Power  Companies  nor  the  Canadian  Power  Companies 
had  been  able  to  use  the  water  allotted.  It  is  unthinkable  that  the 
investments  of  these  private  corporations  were  cared  for,  while  the 
much  greater  financial  investment  of  the  people  of  Illinois,  made  for 
the  preservation  of  public  health,  was  not  safeguarded. 

(23)  Canadian  Acquiescence — It  appears  in  the  various  citations 
and  conclusions  reached  in  paragraphs  17  to  22  of  this  review  that  the 
Dominion  through  the  Canadian  Section  of  the  International  Water- 
ways Commission  intended  that  a  diversion  not  to  exceed  10,000 
cubic  feet  per  second  should  be  authorized  in  the  Chicago  Drainage 
Canal,  and  it  appears  also  that  this  intent  was  conveyed  to  the 
Ambassador  of  Great  Britain,  and  that  this  intent  was  written  into  the 
Treaty,  and  was  acquiesced  in  and  effectuated  by  the  ratification  of 
Great  Britain.  The  acquiescence  of  Canada  in  the  Chicago  diversion, 
through  the  Canadian  Section  of  the  International  Waterways  Com- 
mission and  by  ratification  of  the  Treaty  is  so  complete  and  final  that 
perhaps  any  further  proof  of  intent  is  unnecessary.  It  may  be  argued, 
however,  that  the  prohibition  of  any  diversion  in  excess  of  10,000  cubic 
feet  per  second  was  not  intended  as  acquiescing  in  the  full  diversion  of 
this  maximum.  It  is  illuminating  therefore  to  note  the  wording  of 
a  report  of  the  Canadian  Section  of  the  International  Commission 
dated  March  9,  1908,  as  indicative  of  its  understanding  that  this  volume 
of  diversion  was  an  accepted  accomplished  fact.  See  Canadian  Com- 
pilation, page  627 : 

68 


"Vast  interests  are  involved.  The  amount  by  which  the  mean  level 
will  be  lowered  by  the  discharge  of  10,000  cubic  feet  now  authorized  through 
the  Chicago  Canal,  is  estimated  at  about  six  inches  in  Lakes  Huron  and 
Michigan,  about  five  inches  in  Lake  Erie  and  four  inches  in  Lake  Ontario. 
Any  further  diversion  would  mean  the  necessary  expenditure  of  a  very 
large  amount  of  money  to  restore  depths  in  harbours  and  to  maintain  a 
uniform  draft  of  fourteen  feet  in  our  canal  system." 

The  basis  of  Canadian  opposition  to  granting  the  Sanitary  District  a 
diversion  of  10,000  cubic  feet  per  second  disappears  in  the  light  of  this 
action  of  its  own  International  Waterways  Commission  on  which  the 
Treaty  was  predicated,  and  in  the  light  of  the  authorization  of  the 
Treaty  itself. 

(24)  The  Outlaw — Notwithstanding  the  equitable  conclusions 
reached  back  in  1906  by  the  joint  report  of  the  International  Water- 
ways Commissioners,  the  Sanitary  District  has  long  been  considered  an 
outlaw  in  effect  in  the  minds  of  certain  officjers  of  the  United  States. 
For  this  agency  of  the  State  of  Illinois  to  go  on  diverting  8,000  or  9,000 
cubic  feet  per  second  from  Lake  Michigan — when  authorized  to  divert 
only  4,167 — in  its  prima  facie  aspect  appears  to  be  defiance  of  the  War 
Department  of  the  United  States.  Viewed  more  profoundly,  however, 
the  Sanitary  District  has  questioned  the  finality  of  the  limitation  of  its 
diversion  to  4,167  cubic  feet  per  second,  and  regards  the  decision  of  the 
Secretary  of  War  not  as  a  prohibition  but  as  a  statement  of  lack  of 
jurisdiction  to  permit  more.  While  the  matter  is  before  the  courts,  the 
outlawry  is  not  operative.  Let  it  be  frankly  set  down,  however,  that 
some  earlier  manners,  methods  and  defiances  of  certain  Trustees  of 
the  Sanitary  District  created  about  this  municipal  organization  an 
atmosphere  of  unfriendliness,  which  makes  difficult  the  discernment 
of  its  equitable  deserts  now.  In  an  adjustment  of  the  diversion  it 
should  not  be  necessary  to  penalize  and  put  on  probation  the  three 
million  people  of  the  second  largest  city  of  the  country  and  the  neighbor- 
ing communities,  for  the  sins  of  some  of  their  Trustees  years  ago.  It 
should  be  kept  clearly  in  mind  that  the  diversion  over  or  through  the 
divide  at  Chicago  to  the  Desplaines  River  represents  an  evolution  and  a 
growth  from  a  beginning  a  hundred  years  ago.  In  1822  the  Congress 
of  the  United  States  recognized  the  value  of  a  navigable  canal  from 
Lake  Michigan  to  the  Illinois  River;  and  a  few  years  later  (1827) 
authorized  the  construction  of  this  canal  and  aided  the  project  with  a 
land  grant,  just  as  about  1850  the  State  of  Michigan  was  aided  at  Sault 
Ste.  Marie.  This  little  canal  was  a  legitimate  child  of  the  Federal 
government.  The  writer  does  not  construe  this  early  venture  as  a 
reason  and  authorization  for  all  of  the  present  diversion,  but  it  pointed 

69 


the  way.  Successive  and  increasing  uses  of  the  breached  divide,  by 
pumping  and  by  gravity,  represent  growth  from  a  practice  legitimately 
established. 

(25)  Other  Outlaws — In  passing  judgment  upon  the  Sanitary 
District  it  is  desirable  in  the  interest  of  fair  play  to  visualize  the 
conditions  in  the  Great  Lakes  System  back  in  1889  when  The  Sanitary 
District  Act  was  passed  by  the  Illinois  Legislature.  It  was  largely  the 
custom  and  practice  at  that  time  to  divert  water  from  a  lake  or  river 
with  no  other  authority  than  the  state  or  the  province.  The  United 
States  had  not  fully  emerged  as  the  sole  custodian  on  the  American 
side,  nor  had  the  Dominion  emerged  as  the  sole  custodian  on  the 
Canadian  side  and  the  international  aspect  was  obscure.  Prior  to  1907 
diversions  of  11,000  cubic  feet  per  second  of  water  from  the  Niagara 
River  above  Niagara  Falls  were  in  effect  on  the  American  side ;  and  on 
the  Canadian  side  a  similar  diversion  was  made  by  the  Ontario  Company. 
The  diversion  of  these  aggregate  volumes  of  river  water  caused 
measurable  decreases  in  vessel  channel  depths  in  navigable  waters  of  the 
United  States  and  Canada.  The  diversions  on  the  American  side  were 
made  without  Federal  authorization  under  charter  rights  granted  by  the 
State  of  New  York,  just '  as  the  Sanitary  District  secured  its  charter 
rights  from  the  State  of  Illinois.  The  diversion  on  the  Canadian  side 
was  under  rights  from  the  Province  of  Ontario,  not  from  the  Dominion 
Government.  None  of  these  diversions  was  made  under  international 
sanction.  The  diversions  simply  conformed  to  the  custom  and  practice 
of  that  time. 

(26)  Warren  Report — A  valuable  report  on  a  comprehensive 
investigation,  made  under  the  direction  of  Colonel  J.  G.  Warren  of  the 
Corps  of  Engineers,  U.  S.  Army,  has  been  issued  as  of  date  1921.  That 
portion  of  the  report  prepared  by  Colonel  Warren  personally  bears  date 
of  August  30,  1919.  After  discussing  the  Chicago  situation,  the  following 
recommendations  are  made:     (See  page  101). 

(1)  That  Federal  control  of  the  diversion  at  Chicago  and  in  the 
vicinity  be  established  by  such  measures  as  are  necessary,  provided  the 
United  States  courts  do  not  uphold  the  present  apparent  right  of  the 
Federal  Government  to  regulate  the  diversions  there. 

(2)  That  The  Sanitary  District  of  Chicago  be  permitted  to  divert 
from  Lake  Michigan  and  its  tributaries  a  total  quantity  of  water  not 
exceeding  at  any  time  a  flow  of  10,000  cubic  feet  per  second. 

(3)  That  the  Secretary  of  War  shall  supervise  the  diversions  as  he 
deems  best. 

(4)  That  the  expense  of  supervision  shall  be  paid  for  promptly  at 
stated  intervals  by  The  Sanitary  District  of  Chicago. 

(5)  That  no  dangerous  condition  shall  be  created  in  navigable  waters. 

70 


(6)  That  The  Sanitary  District  agree  to  be  responsible  for  any  damage 
claims  arising  because  of  the  diversion. 

(7)  That  it  shall  pay  its  share  as  determined  by  the  Secretary  of  War 
of  the  cost  of  such  compensating  works  as  the  Federal  Government  con- 
siders necessary  because  of  diversions  of  water  from  the  Great  Lakes  system. 

(8)  That  it  agree  not  to  request  or  make  any  diversion  in  excess  of 
that  herein  stated. 

(9)  That  it  shall  pay  to  the  United  States  for  water  used  for  power 
purposes  at  a  rate  per  cubic  foot  to  be  based  upon  the  relative  value  of  the 
power  as  developed  and  that  which  could  have  been  developed  by  its  use 
at  Niagara  Falls,  N.  Y.,  and  along  the  St.  Lawrence  River. 

(10)  That  it  do  all  in  its  power  to  secure  any  State  authority  needed 
to  enable  it  to  undertake  the  establishment  of  provisions  for  sewage  dis- 
posal other  than  by  dilution. 

(11)  That  when  so  enabled,  it  provide  as  rapidly  as  necessary  such 
sewage  disposal  facilities  as  are  needed  to  care  for  the  growth  of  the  district. 

It  must  be  kept  vividly  in  mind  that  these  conditions  are  intended 
to  be  imposed — not  on  a  powerful  private  corporation — but  on  a 
municipality,  and  that  this  municipality  is  using  the  water  primarily 
for  sanitary  purposes — the  first  preferential  use  under  the  Treaty. 

(27)  Conditions — The  Sanitary  District  will  not  protest  any 
conditions  of  use  which  are  just  and  serve  some  desirable  purpose ;  but 
it  may  properly  object  to  conditions  more  severe  than  those  imposed 
on  private  corporations  diverting  water  for  power  purposes,  or  conditions 
which  are  punitive  in  character.  A  state  and  a  municipality  under  the 
Federal  Water  Power  Act  are  given  preferential,  rather  than  subordinate, 
treatment. 

(28)  Preferential  Uses — In  Article  VIII  of  the  Treaty  the  High 
Contracting  Parties  have  agreed  on  priorities  of  use: 

"The  following  order  of  precedence  shall  be  observed  among  the  various 
uses  enumerated  hereinafter  for  these  waters,  and  no  use  shall  be  permitted 
which  tends  materially  to  conflict  with  or  restrain  any  other  use  which  is 
given  preference  over  it  in  this  order  of  precedence: 

First. — Uses  for  domestic  and  sanitary  purposes. 

Second. — Uses  for  navigation,  including  the  service  of  canals  for  the 
purpose  of  navigation. 

Third. — Uses  for  power  and  for  irrigation  purposes. 

The  foregoing  provisions  shall  not  apply  to  or  disturb  any  existing  uses 
of  boundary  waters  on  either  side  of  the  boundary." 

While  the  order  of  priorities  is  established  for  the  guidance  of  the 
International  Joint  Commission  in  the  determination  of  new  cases 
arising  after  the  Treaty  became  effective,  it  is  an  expression  of  vital 
principles.  The  water  diverted  from  Lake  Michigan  serves  all  three  of 
the  purposes  set  down  in  the  Treaty : 

71 


(1)  It  protects  the  water  supply  and  is  the  vehicle  of  the  disposal  of 
sewage. 

(2)  It  makes  practicable  and  economical  a  14-foot  navigable  waterway- 
leading  toward  the  Gulf  of  Mexico. 

(3)  It  is  utilizable  for  water  power. 

It  should  be  added  in  order  to  keep  this  constantly  in  mind  that  the 
only  loss  to  the  Great  Lakes  System  is  in  the  water  power  content  of 
rivers  so  rich  in  water  power  that  tip  to  the  present  time  only  about 
ten  per  cent  of  the  energy  available  is  in  use. 

(29)  Board  of  Engineers — The  Warren  Report  was  reviewed  by 
the  Board  of  Engineers  for  Rivers  and  Harbors ;  and  this  Board  made  its 
recommendations  August  24,  1920,  nearly  a  year  after  the  submission 
of  the  report  reviewed.  The  Board  report  is  constructive  in  many 
respects.  The  Board  dissents  from  Colonel  Warren  in  two  points: 
The  Board  recommends  a  limit  of  diversion  of  6,800  cubic  feet  per 
second.  The  Board  recommends  "that  the  provision  for  exacting 
payment  is  inexpedient. ' '  The  reason  given  for  the  suggested  limitation 
to  6,800  cubic  second  feet  is  explained  by  the  following  extract  from  its 
discussion:     (Page  55). 

"Chicago  is,  therefore,  debarred  from  any  claim  for  indulgence  as  to 
work  done  and  expenditures  incurred  in  recent  years.  If,  in  defiance  of 
the  opposition  of  the  Government,  and  in  open  disregard  of  the  law,  the 
officials  of  The  Chicago  Sanitary  District  have  continued  to  expend  the 
money  of  their  constituents  in  the  prosecution  of  unwise  and  illegal  plans, 
these  officials  and  their  constituency  are  to  blame,  and  they  should  expect 
no  great  indulgence  from  the  general  public  whose  government  they  have 
ignored  and  whose  interests  they  have  disregarded." 

It  should  be  pointed  out,  however,  that  the  Board  had  in  mind  a 
"permanent  diversion"  while  an  initial  permit  for  a  diversion  for  a 
reasonably  limited  period  is  contemplated  by  the  Sanitary  District. 
That  does  not  eternally  commit  the  Federal  Government  to  this 
diversion.  When  the  time  comes  to  exact  every  possible  kilowatt  of 
power  out  of  the  Great  Lakes  rivers  and  the  Des  Plaines,  Illinois  and 
Mississippi  rivers  as  well,  a  new  limit  of  diversion  may  be  fixed.  That 
time  is  of  the  future,  not  now.  Many  things  are  uncertain  now.  It  is 
not  improbable  that  when  the  time  comes  to  exact  every  kilowatt  of 
power  from  the  outflow  waters  of  the  Great  Lakes,  the  time  will  also  be 
at  hand  to  exact  every  pound  of  fertilizer  out  of  our  municipal  sewage 
and  exact  every  ton  of  carrying  capacity  in  the  inland  waterway  to  the 
Gulf  of  Mexico.  The  writer  of  this  review  concurs  with  the  Board  in 
conservative  limit  of  volume  of  permanent  diversion,  but  dissents  from 
the  punitive  motive  which  unfortunately  is  implied.  Only  one 
consideration  enters  after  regulating  works  are  in  operation:     Is  a 

72 


volume  of  10,000  cubic  feet  of  water  serving  more  usefully  in  its  various 
functions — sanitation,  navigation,  power- — in  the  route  to  the  Gulf  of 
Mexico,  than  in  the  route  to  the  Gulf  of  St.  Lawrence?  In  answering 
this  question,  navigation  by  the  St.  Lawrence  route  to  the  sea  and  scenic 
grandeur  at  Niagara  are  not  involved  because  properly  designed  and 
operated  regulating  works  will  care  for  both.  The  only  remaining  loss 
is  in  power  as  the  water  descends  the  Niagara  and  St.  Lawrence  Rivers — 
and  these  regions  are  so  rich  in  power  that  its  full  economic  use  is  at 
least  a  half  century  away.  A  license  for  diversion  for  a  period  of  years 
at  Chicago  instead  of  a  fixed  diversion  in  perpetuity  presents  a  new 
aspect  not  considered  in  the  Board's  recommendation  of  6,800  cubic- 
second-feet. 

(30)  Completion  of  Project — As  reported  by  the  International 
Waterways  Commission,  The  Sanitary  District  by  1907  had  expended 
40  million  dollars.  At  the  present  time  the  expenditure  is  over  100 
million  dollars.  It  may  be  asked,  why — after  the  legitimacy  of  the 
diversion  and  its  ultimate  permissible  volume  were  in  question — any 
further  work  and  any  further  expenditures  should  not  have  ceased.  It 
should  be  remembered  that  the  first  permit  was  for  5,000  cubic  second 
feet  and  that  this  was  reduced  to  4,167  cubic  second  feet  by  reason  of 
restricted  canal  areas  and  high  current  velocities  in  the  Chicago  River. 
It  was  necessary  to  complete  the  project  to  make  effective  the  investment 
already  made.  The  right  of  the  State  to  divert  this  water  under  its 
police  power  to  protect  life  and  health  was  confidently  believed.  The 
imperative  need  of  dilution  proportionate  to  the  population  compelled 
the  enlargement  of  the  congested  portions  of  the  Chicago  River.  The 
report  of  the  International  Waterways  Commission  in  1907  added  to  the 
confident  expectation  of  the  people.  The  Treaty  of  1910  gave 
international  sanction — but  not  a  Federal  permit.  All  these  things 
have  kept  alive  the  robust  midwest  confidence  in  an  ultimate  equitable 
adjustment,  with  the  full  volume  of  flow  permissible  under  the  Treaty. 
Meantime  expenditures  are  going  on  apace  for  auxiliary  artificial 
purification  stations  to  supplement  the  natural  purification  by  the  water 
of  diversion. 

(31)  Super-Regulation — The  Board  report,  as  commented  on  in 
paragraph  29,  is  constructive  in  its  vision  of  the  possibilities  of  regulating 
works  at  the  head  of  the  Niagara  River  and  in  the  St.  Lawrence  River. 
The  Warren  Report  adhered  to  the  simpler  method  of  compensating 
works,  which  a  decade  ago  were  considered.  The  writer  of  this  review 
in  his  Report  on  the  Regulation  of  the  Niagara  and  St.  Lawrence  Rivers 
(1919)  demonstrated  the  safety  and  possibilities  of  the  elastic  control  of 

73 


the  outflowing  waters  under  a  budget  system,  and  the  mill-pond  values 
of  Lake  Erie  and  Lake  Ontario.  The  scheme  proposed  involved  the 
interrelation  of  the  control  of  the  two  rivers  and  lakes.  Water  release 
in  the  Niagara  contemplated  hourly,  daily  and  monthly  variations. 
The  Board  has  gone  further  than  the  writer  in  recommending  twelve- 
month operation  and  points  out  greater  power  use  when  the  ice  complica- 
tion is  eliminated  by  flushing.  In  this  twelve-month  control  the  writer 
fully  concurs.  His  own  design  was  suggested  to  meet  the  Buffalo  objec- 
tions, which  have  more  weight  psychologically  than  physically.  Twelve- 
month control,  with  enlarged  channel  capacity  in  the  Niagara  River, 
will  permit  raising  the  mean  level  of  Lake  Erie  not  less  than  18  inches  in 
such  normal  decades  as  that  of  1907-1916,  and  not  less  than  24  inches  in 
such  low-water  decades  as  that  of  1893-1902.  These  high  levels  for 
Lake  Erie  surface  will  more  than  compensate  the  diversion  of  10,000 
cubic  second  feet  at  Chicago,  without  compensating  works  in  the  St. 
Clair  River,  and  no  dredging  will  be  necessary  in  Lake  St.  Clair  to 
restore  it  for  all  diversions — that  of  Chicago,  those  in  the  Welland 
Canal  and  present  and  future  diversions  in  the  Niagara  River.  It  should 
be  added  that  the  menace  of  flood  stages  in  Lake  Erie  will  disappear, 
when  the  flood  relief  outlets  at  Chicago  and  in  the  Welland  Canal  dispose 
of  15,500  cubic  second  feet  and  the  flow  capacity  of  the  Niagara  River  is 
augmented  by  deepening  the  reach  at  Buffalo.  The  flood  relief  thus 
provided  will  make  safe  the  maintenance  through  the  winter  months  of  a 
stage  in  Lake  Erie  of  574.0  feet.  Super-regulation  appears  to  be  the 
ultimate  solution  of  the  problem  of  the  economic  use  of  the  waters  of  the 
Great  Lakes.  One  of  the  very  remarkable  correlaries  in  this  matter 
of  regulation  is  that  the  safe  elevation  at  which  Lake  Erie  may  be  re- 
tained— and  flood  damage  hazard  avoided — is  higher  by  reason  'of  the 
flood-water  relief  at  Chicago  and  in  the  Welland  Canal.  Without  any 
deepening  in  the  Buffalo  reach  of  the  Niagara  River  to  afford  flood 
relief,  the  diversions  in  the  two  canals  above  mentioned  will  permit  a 
higher  level  by  three  inches  to  be  safely  maintained  in  Lake  Erie  than 
would  be  permissible  without  these  diversions.  It  follows  from  this 
that  with  effective  regulation,  navigation  is  a  beneficiary  of  these 
diversions. 

(32)  Backwater — The  backwater  values  for  the  Detroit  and  St. 
Clair  Rivers  derived  from  the  Warren  Report  are  widely  divergent  from 
the  values  computed  by  the  Board  of  Engineers  on  Deep  Waterways 
(1900)  and  widely  divergent  from  the  values  used  by  the  writer  in  his 
1919  Report  on  Regulation.     These  are  for  mean  stage: 

74 


BACKWATER    BASED    ON    LAKE    ERIE 
AUTHORITY IN    LAKE   ST.   CLAIR  IN   LAKE   HURON 

Deep  Waterways  Board 66 .7%  33  .3% 

Shenehon  Report 75  .0%  34 .4% 

Warren  Report 27 .6%  13 .8% 

These  percentages  mean  that  when  Lake  Erie  is  raised  1.00  foot,  the 
Warren  Report  finds  a  rise  of  0.276  foot  in  Lake  St.  Clair  and  Lake 
Huron  will  be  raised  0.138  foot.  The  physical  unfitness  of  the  Warren 
figures  appears  when  the  backwater  efficiency  of  the  St.  Clair  River  with 
its  fall  of  5.5  feet  is  seen  to  be  80  per  cent  greater  than  the  backwater 
efficiency  of  the  Detroit  River  with  its  3.1  feet  of  fall.  The  Board  of 
Engineers  on  Deep  Waterways  by  theoretical  considerations  found  the 
backwater  efficiency  of  the  Detroit  River  33  per  cent  more  than  that  of 
the  St.  Clair  River.  The  writer  computed  the  St.  Clair  River  backwater 
efficiency  from  the  Lake  Survey  Equation  of  Discharge  of  the  river  in 
terms  of  the  elevations  of  Lake  Huron  and  Lake  St.  Clair,  as  shown 
graphically  opposite  page  14  of  his  Report  on  the  Regulation  of  Niagara 
River.  He  determined  by  analysis  based  on  the  Chezy  formula  the 
backwater  efficiency  of  the  Detroit  River.  The  backwater  efficiency 
of  the  St.  Clair  River  for  1.00  foot  rise  in  Lake  St.  Clair  shows  close 
agreement  of  the  three  authorities : 

BACKWATER     BASED 
ON    LAKE    ST.   CLAIR 
AUTHORITY —  IN   LAKE  HURON 

Deep  Waterways  Board 50  .0% 

Shenehon  Report 45  .9% 

Warren  Report 50  ,0% 

The  backwater  values  for  the  Detroit  River  are  believed  to  have  been 
determined  for  the  Warren  Report  by  equations  of  flow  of  the  river  in 
terms  of  Lake  St.  Clair  and  Lake  Erie  ele\*ations.  The  analytical 
problem  presented,  however,  of  untangling  the  effect  of  one  lake  from  the 
other  was  so  intricate  that  values  which  will  satisfy  an  equation  have  a 
wide  range.  The  backwater  problem  is  more  readily  and  accurately 
determined  by  direct  approach.  An  example  of  what  this  backwater 
efficiency  in  the  Detroit  River  really  implies  will  make  clear  the  incon- 
gruity of  the  values  derived  from  the  Warren  Report  (pages  89-90)  of 
0.276  foot  rise  in  Lake  St.  Clair  for  1.00  foot  rise  in  Lake  Erie.  The  fall 
of  3.1  feet  in  the  Detroit  River  represents  the  potential  expenditure  to 
overcome  the  various  energy  losses  from  friction,  eddies  and  varying 
velocities.  The  following  tabulation  shows  the  energy  content  in  the 
fall  between  Lake  St.  Clair  and  Lake  Erie  under  the  backwater  value  of 
27.6  per  cent  derived  from  the  Warren  Report : 

75 


lRTIFICIAL  rise 

FALL   LAKE    ST. 

CLAIR 

PERCENTAGE 

IN   LAKE   ERIE 

TO   LAKE    ERIE 

ENERGY   USED 

FEET 

FEET 

0.0 

3.10 

100 

1,0 

2.38 

77 

2.0 

1.65 

53 

3.0 

0.93 

30 

4.0 

0.20 

6+ 

With  a  mean  depth  of  20  feet  for  a  fall  of  3.1  feet,  the  new  mean 
depth  with  Lake  Erie  raised  3.0  feet  is  less  than  22  feet.  Is  it  possible 
that  with  a  change  of  10  per  cent  in  the  hydraulic  radius  and  10  per 
cent  in  the  cross-sectional  area,  the  transportation  of  exactly  the  same 
amount  of  water  may  be  accomplished  with  30  per  cent  of  its  normal 
energy  requirement  ?  If  on  the  other  hand  the  backwater  value  is  taken 
as  75  per  cent  the  following  relations  obtain: 


ARTIFICIAL   RISE 

FALL    LAKE    ST.    CLAIR 

PERCENTAGE 

IN   LAKE   ERIE 

TO   LAKE    ERIE 

ENERGY   USED 

FEET 

FEET 

0.0 

3.10 

100 

1.0 

2.85 

92 

2.0 

2.60 

84 

3.0 

2.35 

76 

4.0 

2.10 

68 

It  is  very  clear  that  the  reason  why  less  energy  is  required  to  transport 
a  certain  fixed  volume  of  water  through  the  Detroit  River — when  back- 
water creates  greater  depths — is  that  velocities  become  lower  and 
hence  the  energy  expenditures— which  vary  as  the  square  of  the 
velocity — are  somewhat  less.  It  will  illuminate  this  situation  to  com- 
pute the  energy  required  to  transport  a  fixed  mean  volume  of  flow 
through  the  Detroit  River,  with  assumed  different  mean  depths.  These 
energy  requirements  are  based  on  the  Bazin  formula,  with  varying 
values  of  the  coefficient  depending  upon  different  values  for  the  hy- 
draulic radius.  Just  one  assumption  is  made:  that  the  hydraulic 
radius  equals  the  mean  depth.  This  is  very  close  to  the  truth  in  this 
wide  river  with  flat  cross-stream  profile. 

MEAN  DEPTH  FALL   IN  FEET  PERCENTAGE 

NO.  OF   RIVER  LAKE  ST.   CLAIR-ERIE  ENERGY   USED 

1  15  3.1  100.0 

2  16  2.5  80.6 

3  17  2.0  66.0 

As  the  increase  in  the  mean  depth  of  the  Detroit  River  for  a  two-foot 
artificial  rise  in  Lake  Erie  is  less  than  two  feet,  it  is  certain — with  this 

76 


artificial  Lake  Erie  rise  of  two  feet  present — that  the  energy  requirement 
must  be  more  than  2.0  feet;  and  consequently  the  backwater  value  must 
much  exceed  50  per  cent.  It  will  be  observed  that  the  base  or  normal 
mean  depth  of  the  Detroit  River  is  taken  as  15  feet  to  make  certain  that 
no  error  may  enter  from  the  earlier  assumption  of  20  feet  as  the  mean 
depth.  The  writer  believes  it  obvious  that  the  backwater  values  for  the 
Detroit  River  in  the  Warren  Report  are  widely  in  error.  The  restoration 
of  navigable  depths  above  the  mouth  of  the  Detroit  River  by  raising 
Lake  Erie  is  so  vastly  important  in  any  scheme  of  regulation  that  this 
manifest  error  should  be  eliminated.  Even  with  a  value  for  the  back- 
water efficiency  of  the  Detroit  River  of  67  per  cent  and  super-regulation 
operative,  no  dredging  in  Lake  St.  Clair  and  no  compensating  weirs  in 
the  St.  Clair  River  will  be  necessary.  The  Report  of  the  Board  of 
Engineers  for  Rivers  and  Harbors  estimated  for  dredging  in  Lake  St. 
Clair  and  weirs  in  the  St.  Clair  River  an  expenditure  of  $2,160,000. 
Unless  much  more  than  restoration  is  contemplated  for  Lake  St.  Clair, 
Lakes  Michigan-Huron  and  St.  Marys  River,  super-regulation  makes 
this  expenditure  unnecessary.  The  writer  of  this  review  feels  warranted 
in  discussing  the  solution  of  the  problem  of  regulation,  because  the 
Sanitary  District  appears  by  the  Warren  Report,  in  which  the  Board 
concurs,  to  share  in  the  payment  for  the  works  required. 

(33)  Restoration  Cost  —  While  the  Sanitary  District,  in  a 
bill  introduced  in  Congress  on  November  9,  1921  (H.  R.  9046),  has 
offered  to  pay  into  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States  such  sum  or  sums 
of  money  as  may  be  estimated  by  the  Chief  of  Engineers  to  be  the 
reasonable  cost  of  constructing  compensating  works  or  regulating 
works,  or  both,  it  would  manifestly  be  inequitable  to  permit  The 
Sanitary  District  of  Chicago  to  do  this  without  granting  to  other 
agencies  responsible  for  the  lowering  of  lake  levels  the  privilege  of 
sharing  in  the  cost  of  such  works.  The  Board  of  Engineers  on  Deep 
Waterways  (1900)  reported  on  works  to  cost  $796,923,  with  an  addi- 
tional dredging  cost  of  $384,000— about  $1,181,000  in  all— to  regulate 
Lake  Erie  at  elevation  574.6  feet  above  sea  level.  These  works  might 
cost  $1,800,000  in  1923.  The  effect  of  this  regulation  will  more  than 
offset  any  lowering  of  Lakes  Michigan  and  Huron  and  the  St.  Marys 
River  due  to  a  diversion  of  10,000  cubic  second  feet  of  water  at  Chicago. 
No  additional  submerged  weirs  will  be  necessary  in  the  St.  Clair  River 
to  accomplish  this.  The  St.  Clair  River  over  a  greater  part  of  its  length 
will  be  more  than  restored.  At  its  mouth,  in  Lake  St.  Clair  and  at  the 
head  of  the  Detroit  River  the  increased  surface  level  height  will  be  half  a 
foot  more  than  that  existing  prior  to  the  opening  of  the  Chicago  Drainage 
Canal  in  1900.     At  the  mouth  of  the  Detroit  River  and  in  Lake  Erie 

77 


the  surface  level  will  be  raised  a  foot  or  more  above  the  mean  stage 
existing  prior  to  1900.  The  limit  of  Lake  Erie  surface  height  depends, 
when  super-regulation  is  effective,  on  the  brim,  level  of  the  lake  itself, 
when  it  is  so  full  that  any  greater  rise  would  cause  flooding  of  the  low- 
lying  shore  lands  or  damage  to  harbor  works.  The  brimful  level  of 
Lake  Erie  may  be  taken  as  574.5  feet  above  sea  level.  It  reached 
approximately  this  level  as  a  monthly  mean  in  1862  and  in  1876.  In 
1838  it  reached  the  high  water  level  of  575.1  feet.  The  writer  in  his 
Report  on  the  Regulation  of  the  Niagara  River  (1919)  found  the  water 
supply  tributary  to  the  Niagara  River — with  no  diversion — about 
330,000  cubic  feet  per  second  during  April,  1913.  The  outflow  ca- 
pacity of  the  Niagara  River  with  Lake  Erie  at  elevation  574.5  is  253,000 
cubic  second  feet.  Add  to  this  the  flood  relief  capacities  of  the  Chicago 
Drainage  Canal,  10,000  cubic  second  feet,  the  Welland  Canal,  5,500, 
the  Erie  and  Black  Rock  Canals,  2,400  cubic  second  feet,  and  the 
augmented  river  capacity  by  reason  of  expected  power  diversions  in  the 
Chippewa-Grass  Island  pool  of  the  Niagara  River,  7,100  cubic  second 
feet,  shows  an  aggregated  flood  disposal  total  of  278,000  cubic  second 
feet.  Add  to  this  the  reservoir  capacity  of  Lake  Erie  between  elevations 
574.0  and  574.5  feet  accumulated  in  two  months — 30,000  cubic  second 
feet — and  the  maximum  flood  disposal  and  absorbing  capacity  is  308,000 
cubic  second  feet.  In  the  past  50  years  the  supply  has  only  once — in 
1913 — exceeded  this  maximum  capacity  for  two  consecutive  calendar 
months.  While  extreme  prudence  may  make  desirable  some  rock 
excavation  in  the  Buffalo  reach  of  the  Niagara  River,  the  increased  flow 
capacity  does  not  need  to  be  increased  by  this  process  more  than  ten  per 
cent.  This  will  mean  that  at  Lake  Erie  stage  574.5,  which  may  some 
time  come  in  May  or  June,  the  new  outflow  capacity — without  power 
company  increment — will  be  278,300  cubic  second  feet  and  the  total 
capacity  for  disposal  without  mill  pond  absorption  will  be  about  303,000 
cubic  feet  per  second.  This  capacity  appears  sufficient  when  it  is  re- 
membered that  advance  warning  is  given  by  the  opulent  precipitation 
in  the  watershed  and  brimming  levels  in  Lakes  Superior,  Michigan  and 
Huron.  With  flood  conditions  forecasted,  Lake  Erie,  and  Lake  Ontario 
as  well,  can  be  pulled  down  to  develop  reservoir  capacity  to  aid  in 
absorbing  any  flood  flow  to  come.  A  fund  of  one  million  dollars  com- 
pounded annually  for  50  years  at  4  per  cent  interest  will  become 
$7,106,680.  It  may  be  sounder  economically  to  save  the  expenditure 
of  a  million  dollars  in  rock  excavation — when  the  omission  of  the 
improvement  may  risk  a  trivial  damage  to  riparians  once  in  50  years. 
The  removable  gates  designed  by  the  writer  for  the  Niagara  River 
regulation  were  estimated  to  cost  about  $1,224,000.  The  super- 
regulating  dam  recommended  by  the  Board  of  Engineers  for  Rivers 

78 


and  Harbors  in  the  Review  of  the  Warren  Report  is  estimated  to  cost 
$8,000,000.  It  is  surmised  that  some  considerable  portion  of  this 
expenditure  must  be  for  rock  excavation.  While  the  Sanitary  District 
is  ready  to  assume  a  reasonable  burden  of  expense  in  undoing  any 
damage  to  the  Great  Lakes,  the  Board  of  Engineers  itself  recognizes 
that  other  agencies  should  cooperate.  The  various  lowerings  of  Lake 
Erie  in  the  future  may  be  set  down  as  follows : 

Chicago  diversion... 10,000  c.s.f.  0.46  ft. 

Welland  Canal 5,500  c.s.f.  0.26  ft. 

New  York  Canals 2,400  c.s.f.  0.06  ft. 

Niagara  Power  Companies..-.. — ~ 0.32  ft. 

Total  lowering...... 1.10  ft. 

The  Sanitary  District's  share  of  this  is  41  per  cent.  It  should  be 
frankly  acknowledged,  however,  that  Lake  Erie  must  be  raised  the  full 
practicable  amount  to  offset  completely  the  lowering  in  Lakes  Michigan 
and  Huron  and  in  the  St.  Mary's  River.  Since  super-regulation, 
however,  adds  to  the  permissible  power  use  on  the  Niagara  and  St. 
Lawrence  Rivers,  and  avoids  daylight  meagerness  of  flow  at  Niagara 
Falls,  the  beneficiaries  of  these  things  must  not  be  forgotten.  The 
recommendation  of  the  Board  of  Engineers  is  for  division  of  expense 
between  the  two  governments.  What  this  means  as  to  The  Sanitary 
District's  share  is  not  clear;  perhaps  with  a  diversion  of  6,800  cubic 
second  feet,  nothing.  The  writer  in  his  Report  on  the  Regulation  of  the 
St.  Lawrence  River  estimated  the  works  to  cost  a  million  dollars.  Here 
again  super-regulation  is  imperative  and  the  works  now  contemplated 
will  prove  part  of  a  power  dam.  A  contribution  of  a  million  dollars 
toward  this  is  suggested  by  The  Sanitary  District. 

(34)  Differential  Diversion — All  this  discussion  really  hinges 
on  a  quantity  of  diversion  which  represents  the  difference  between  the 
designed  capacity  of  the  Drainage  Canal — 10,000  cubic  second  feet — 
and  the  diversion  recommended  by  the  Board  of  Engineers  for  Rivers 
and  Harbors — 6,800  cubic  second  feet.  As  the  recommendations  of  the 
Board  of  Engineers  will  have  great  weight  with  the  Committees  and 
Members  of  Congress,  the  differential  quantity,  3,200  cubic  second  feet, 
needs  to  be  examined.  With  regulation  effective  this  is  an  absolutely 
negligible  quantity  from  the  navigation  standpoint.  It  is  less  than 
the  diversion  for  power  purposes  by  Canada  in  the  Welland  Canal, 
and  has  less  effect  on  Lake  Erie  when  uncompensated.  Its  single 
significance  is  in  power.  The  only  justification  for  withholding  this 
differential  diversion  so  far  as  power  is  concerned  begins  when  every 

79 


practicable  kilowatt  of  power  is  developed  and  usefully  employed. 
More  than  six  times  the  power  in  this  differential  diversion  is  now 
wasted  by  the  inefficiencies  of  the  present  Niagara  Falls  plants.  (See 
paragraph  13  of  this  review.)  More  than  seventeen  times  this  power  is 
unused  in  the  Niagara  River.  More  than  sixty  times  this  power  is 
running  to  waste  in  the  St.  Lawrence  River. 

(35)  Rate  of  Diversion— The  very  nature  of  the  diversion  in 
the  Chicago  Drainage  Canal  points  to  the  fact  that  the  superior 
usefulness  of  the  water  will  come  from  some  elasticity  in  the  variation  of 
the  rate  of  diversion.  A  high  volume  of  flow  is  sanitarily  desirable  in 
the  hot  mid-summer  months,  when  the  temperature  of  the  water  may 
accelerate  putrefaction  and  cause  stench.  This  is  particularly  true 
when  the  natural  flow  of  the  Illinois  River  is  low.  A  larger  volume  of 
flow  during  such  periods  will  be  helpful  also  to  navigation.  On  the 
other  hand,  in  midwinter,  when  the  water  is  close  to  the  freezing  point, 
putrefactive  processes  are  slow  and  navigation  is  suspended.  A  lesser 
volume  of  flow  will  serve  under  these  conditions.  It  will  be  in  the  best 
interests  of  conservation  to  fix  the  conditions  of  diversion  such  that 
the  limitation  applies  to  a  mean  value  for  the  calendar  year.  This  will 
make  for  the  maximum  effectiveness  of  the  water  diverted  and  will  not 
affect  adversely  the  Great  Lakes  System.  The  water  power  content 
of  the  Niagara  and  St.  Lawrence  Rivers  will  be  precisely  the  same, 
whether  the  diversion  at  Chicago  is  10,000  cubic  second  feet  per  day,  per 
month  or  per  year.  It  will  be  wise  to  fix  the  limitation  as  applying  to  a 
calendar  year,  and  place  in  the  hands  of  the  Secretary  of  War  authority 
to  regulate  variations  in  the  rate  of  flow. so  that  no  obstructive  currents 
may  be  caused  in  the  Chicago  River.  The  reason  why  the  variation  in 
flow  will  not  affect  adversely  any  interests  in  the  Great  Lakes  System 
arises  from  the  fact  that  the  great  reservoir  values  of  Lakes  Michigan, 
Huron  and  Erie  serve  to  absorb  and  delay  the  effects  of  diversions.  A 
permanent  diversion  is  not  felt  in  any  measurable  degree  in  Lake  Erie 
or  in  the  Niagara  River  for  a  year  or  more  after  the  diversion  begins. 
Variations  in  diversion  throughout  the  year  will  not  be  transmitted 
through  these  vast  retarding  basins. 

(36)  Conclusion — The  equitable  conclusion  of  the  International 
Waterways  Commission  has  already  been  mentioned.  In  the  Canadian 
Compilation  referred  to  in  paragraph  18  of  this  review,  paragraph  19  on 
page  520  reads  as  follows : 

(19)  "In  the  expenditure  of  $40,000,000  for  the  drainage  canal  the 
people  of  Chicago,  with  its  population  of  2,000,000,  incurred  a  burden 
equivalent  to  that  due  to  an  expenditure  of  $1,600,000,000  by  the  United 
States,  with  its  population  of  80,000,000  —  that  is,  enough  to  build  eight 

80 


or  more  Panama  canals.  It  was  a  very  serious  effort  and  has  commanded 
the  admiration  and  sympathy  of  all  observers.  The  diversion  of  10,000 
cubic  feet  per  second  from  Lake  Michigan  affects  other  interests  adversely, 
but  these  interests  have  withheld  their  opposition,  seeming  to  believe  that 
some  such  amount  was  necessary,  and  apparently  willing  to  contribute 
their  share  to  protect  the  lives  and  health  of  the  people  of  a  great  city. 
The  plans  calling  for  that  amount  have  been  under  public  discussion  for 
some  years.  Although  withholding  formal  approval,  the  Federal  authorities 
have  taken  no  steps  to  prevent  their  execution.  Congress  has  called  for  a 
plan  and  estimates  for  an  improvement  of  the  waterways  connecting  with 
it,  the  scope  of  which  is  fixed  by  that  amount.  There  appears  to  be  a 
tacit  general  agreement  that  Chicago  needs  or  will  need  about  10,000  cubic 
second  feet  of  water  for  sanitary  purposes  and  that  the  city  should  have  it 
without  question." 

In  this  equitable  conclusion  the  Canadian  Section  concurred  with  the 
American  Section. 


81 


INDEX  TO  APPENDIX  "B" 


The    Withdrawal    of    Water    from    the    Great    Lakes    System 
By  The  Sanitary  District  of  Chicago 

Paragraph  Subject  Page 

1  Introductory 53 

2  The  State  of  Illinois 53 

3  Obstruction  to  Navigation 54 

4  Water  Power 54 

5  Regulation 55 

6  Restoration 55 

7  Legal  Aspect 56 

8  Litigation 56 

9  Congressional  Authority 57 

10  Pollution 57 

11  No  Diversion 58 

12  Permitted  Diversion 59 

13  Waste  at  Niagara  Falls 59 

14  Canadian  Navigation 60 

15  Uncompensated  Waters 61 

16  Canadian  Water  Power 61 

17  Before  the  Treaty 62 

18  Before  the  Joint  Report 63 

19  Subsequent  Report 65 

20  The  Treaty 66 

21  Framing  the  Treaty 67 

22  Protection  of  Investments 68 

23  Canadian  Acquiescence 68 

24  The  Outlaw 69 

25  Other  Outlaws 70 

26  Warren  Report 70 

27  Conditions 71 

28  Preferential  Uses 71 

29  Board  of  Engineers 72 

30  Completion  of  Project 73 

3 1  Super-Regulation 73 

32  Backwater 74 

33  Restoration  Cost 77 

34  Differential  Diversion 79 

35  Rate  of  Diversion 80 

36  Conclusion 80 


82 


APPENDIX  "C" 

Report  of  E.  L.  Cooley,  Hydraulic  Engineer,  to  Edward 
J.  Kelly,  Chief  Engineer  of  the  Sanitary  District  of  Chicago, 
regarding  Flood  Flow  in  the  Chicago  River. 

Chicago,  August  21,  1923. 
Mr.  Edward  J.  Kelly, 

Chief  Engineer. 
Dear  Sir: 

(1)  About  the  notable  storm  of  August  11,  1923,  when  the  Chicago 
River  discharged  a  large  volume  of  sewage  water  into  Lake  Michigan 
during  a  period  of  at  least  six  hours  and  polluted  the  public  water  supply. 
The  following  notes  and  discussion  are  submitted  for  what  they  are 
worth.  As  you  will  see,  an  argument  has  been  made  for  a  larger  flow 
through  the  canal.  Most  of  the  notes  have  been  appended  to  the 
discussion. 

(2)  As  reported  by  the  Chicago  office  of  the  U.  S.  Weather  Bureau, 
the  local  rainfall  was  2.68  inches  early  Saturday  morning  and  1.00 
inch  more  Saturday  night,  a  total  of  3.68  inches  in  24  hours  on  the 
Chicago  area,  Aug.  11,  1923.  The  above  figures  are  from  newspaper 
reports.  Mr.  Mitchell  of  the  U.  S.  Weather  Bureau  was  quoted  as 
saying:  "The  records  contain  a  large  number  of  instances  wherein 
more  than  three  inches  fell  within  twenty-four  hours.' '  This  applies 
to  the  Chicago  area. 

(3)  The  storm  of  Aug.  11,  1923,  overloaded  a  great  many  if  not 
all  of  the  Chicago  sewers.  The  run-off  period  was  prolonged  by  water 
ponded  in  subways,  basements,  and  on  the  surface  in  the  outlying 
areas  where  streets  were  flooded  to  the  tops  of  the  curbs.  In  many 
areas  water  was  stored  below  street  level  in  yards  and  lots  with  small 
sewer  inlets  and  some  of  the  water  had  time  to  soak  into  the  ground. 
As  a  rule  the  street  inlets  are  too  small  and  in  some  large  areas  the  sewers 
should  have  about  double  the  present  capacity.  In  the  near  future 
with  more  impervious  area  and  larger  run-off,  more  relief  sewers,  better 
inlets,  and  additional  sewered  area,  it  is  quite  obvious  that  the  normal 
rate  of  stormwater  run-off  will  be  much  larger  than  it  is  at  the  present 
time;  consequently  the  rate  of  flow  in  the  river  and  down  the  canal 
will  be  much  larger. 

(4)  We  have  had  record  floods  of  4,000  c.  f.  s.  or  more  out  of  the 
North  Branch.     Since  then  the  "Armour  Ditch "  has  improved  the 

83 


middle  fork  from  Rondout  to  the  County  Line  and  the  drainage  of 
about  30  square  miles  in  the  Skokie  north  of  Willow  Street,  Winnetka, 
is  due  to  be  improved.  Formerly  the  run-off  from  about  60  square 
miles  has  been  stored  for  a  time  in  the  extensive  marshes  of  these  two 
forks.  The  North  Shore  Channel  has  improved  the  drainage  of  a  large 
area  and  its  tributary  sewers  now  intercept  the  run-off  from  a  number 
of  square  miles  formerly  draining  into  Lake  Michigan.  More  area 
further  north  may  be  added  as  the  North  Shore  villages  develop.  In 
the  not  distant  future  with  these  marshes  better  drained,  and  with 
more  tributary  sewers,  it  is  reasonable  to  expect  a  record  flood  of  at 
least  5000  c.  f.  s.  out  of  the  North  Branch  alone. 

(5)  When  the  Sanitary  District  law  was  framed  in  1887  the  esti- 
mated stormwater  run-off  of  the  Chicago  area  was  10,000  c.  f .  s.  and  the 
Sanitary  Canal  wras  originally  designed  to  carry  this  estimated  run-off 
from  the  Chicago  area.  Later  the  Calumet-Sag  Channel  has  been 
built  with  a  nominal  capacity  of  2,000  c.  f.  s.  and  the  Calumet  area  has 
been  added  to  the  Chicago  area.  Under  a  moderate  hydraulic  grade 
the  Calumet-Sag  Channel  will  easily  carry  2,500  c.  f.  s.  when  the 
Hegewisch-Dalton-Harvey  area  has  been  added  to  the  Calumet  area 
and  this  should  be  the  flood  capacity.  On  this  basis  the  combined 
flood  capacity  of  both  channels  will  be  12,500  c.  f.  s.  or  exactly  3  times 
the  4,167  c.  f.  s.  allowed  by  the  federal  permit.  Incidentally,  with  a 
limited  flow  of  4,167  c.  f.  s.  the  two  channels  would  gradually  silt  up  as 
has  been  the  case  in  the  Grand  Calumet  Channel  to  Hammond  dredged 
som?  years  ago  by  the  U.  S.  Engineers.  Until  more  sewers  are  built 
and  the  reach  of  the  Calumet  river  from  the  Forks  to  the  Canal  at 
Blue  Island  has  been  dredged  to  capacity  the  Calumet-Sag  Channel 
is  not  expected  to  carry  its  full  rated  capacity.  Under  present  conditions 
without  a  self -cleaning  current  it  probably  is  slowly  silting  up.  A  few 
years  after  the  Main  Channel  was  opened  in  1900,  with  an  average 
flow  of  4,000  or  5,000  c.  f .  s.  a  deposit  several  feet  deep  was  found  in  the 
reach  of  canal  from  Summit  to  Willow  Springs. 

(6)  With  a  flow  of  10,000+2,500=  12,500  c.  f.  s.,  the  flow  will  be 
3x4,167=12,500  c.  f.  s.  and  the  slope  ratio  will  be  1  to  9;  but  at  the 
present  time  the  Calumet-Sag  Channel  does  not  maintain  this  relation. 
Neglecting  the  tributary  Sag  Channel  and  assuming  A  and  C  constant 
in  the  formula  Q  =  A  C  VRS :  Then  with  a  flow  of  1 0,000  c.  f .  s.  in  the 
Main  Channel  the  slope  from  Lake  Michigan  to  the  Power  Plant  will 
be  5.76  times  the  slope  with  a  limited  flow  of  4,167  c.  f.  s.;  with  proper 
values  of  A  and  C  the  slope  ratio  will  be  about  1  to  6.  With  the  Sag 
Channel  tributary  included  the  slope  ratio  will  be  considerably  more 
than  1  to  6;  but  data  to  work  out  this  complicated  hydraulic  relation 
is  not  at  hand  and  the  available  time  is  short.     A  slope  ratio  of  1  to  6 

84 


is  assumed:  Then  under  average  conditions  with  a  limited  flow  of 
4,167  c.  f.  s.  the  total  slope  will  be  1  foot,  and  6  feet  for  a  flow  of  10,000 
c.  f.  s.  This  assumed  relation  is  reasonably  close  to  the  data  at  hand. 
Under  present  working  conditions  a  case  of  uniform  flow  does  not  occur 
in  a  period  of  8  hours.  When  the  heavy  lighting  load  goes  off  in  the 
morning  the  canal  gauge  at  the  Power  Plant  is  still  falling  about  half  a 
foot  an  hour.  A  test  made  some  years  ago  indicated  that  it  took  more 
than  24  hours  to  establish  uniform  slope  with  a  uniform  flow  somewhat 
less  than  the  maximum.  When  the  test  began  the  flow  was  about 
half  the  test  flow.  It  took  a  long  time  to  run  off  the  water  stored  in 
the  Main  Channel.  Under  present  conditions  the  time  would  be  less. 
The  stored  water  question  is  discussed  in  more  detail  in  paragraphs 
(9),  (10),  and  (11). 

(7)  With  a  limited  uniform  flow  of  4,167  c.  f.  s.  the  total  declivity 
of  36  miles  of  river  and  canal  from  Lake  Michigan  to  the  Power  Plant 
is  assumed  to  be  12  inches,  or  an  average  of  1  inch  in  3  miles.  In  this 
case  the  water  surface  at  Lake  Street  will  be  less  than  1  inch  below 
lake  level,  assuming  a  local  declivity  of  2  inches  to  3  miles.  The  area 
of  all  the  water  surface  including  the  Main  Channel,  Sag  Channel, 
and  the  various  branches  and  forks  of  the  Chicago  River  is  more  than 
75,000,000  square  feet.  If  Lake  Michigan  should  fall  1  foot  in  an  hour 
or  two,  as  it  does  several  times  a  year,  it  would  take  5  or  6  hours  to  run 
off  one  foot  of  stored  water  and  reestablish  the  flow  from  the  lake,  if 
no  water  flowed  back  into  the  lake;  but  with  the  water  surface  at  Lake 
Street  about  11  inches  above  lake  level  there  would  be  a  rapid  flow 
back  into  the  lake  and  the  Xorth  Branch  and  perhaps  all  the  South 
Branch  would  flow  back  into  the  lake  for  several  hours.  If  the  lake 
should  fall  2  feet,  as  it  does  once  or  twice  a  year,  the  back  flow  would  be 
larger  and  would  last  a  longer  time.  It  is  not  worth  while  to  work 
out  such  a  case  in  minute  detail;  a  variation  of  2  or  3  inches  will  not 
change  the  general  conclusion.  The  fact  remains  that  with  a  limited 
flow  of  4,167  c.  f.  s.  the  Chicago  water  supply  would  be  threatened  a 
number  of  times  each  year,  and  probably  that  sedimentation  in  the 
river  and  canal  would  cause  a  public  nuisance. 

(8)  Assume  that  with  a  limited  flow  of  4,167  c.  f.  s.  we  are  permitted 
to  increase  the  flow  during  or  after  a  storm:  This  is  not  a  safe  working 
condition.  It  is  hard  to  anticipate  the  time  and  magnitude  of  a  storm. 
About  half  the  storms  occur  at  night.  It  is  not  proposed  to  transfer 
the  operation  of  the  canal  to  the  Weather  Bureau.  The  safest  way  is 
to  have  an  established  flow  of  at  least  10,000  c.  f.  s.  when  the  storm 
begins.  Once  or  twice  a  year  the  safe  flow  should  be  more  than  10,000 
c.  f.  s.  as  was  the  case  on  Aug.  11.  Except  the  Sag  Channel  and  the 
upper  forks  of  the  North  Branch  practically  all  the  tributary  storm 

85 


waters  come  in  through  sewers  and  nearly  all  of  these  sewers  may  be 
discharging  at  a  maximum  rate  an  hour  or  two  after  the  storm  begins. 
This  was  the  case  for  both  the  intense  storms  of  Aug.  11,  one  before 
daylight  and  the  other  after  dark.  Without  going  into  the  minutiae 
of  time  intervals  and  gauge  relations  it  may  be  stated  that  the  storm- 
water  sewage  was  flowing  into  the  lake  at  6  A.  M.,  Aug.  11,  and  perhaps 
3  hours  earlier,  and  that  the  river  continued  to  flow  into  the  lake  until 
about  12:30  P.  M.  and  was  practically  at  a  stand  during  most  of  the 
afternoon,  all  as  observed  by  a  number  of  people  who  had  business  on 
the  river.  The  conditions  due  to  a  long  steady  storm  need  not  be 
discussed  at  this  time. 

(9)  After  the  lighting  load  at  the  Power  Plant  went  off  at  4:30, 
Aug.  11,  the  average  flow  from  4:30  to  9  a.  m.  was  4,340  c.  f.  s.  by  Mr. 
Ramey's  estimate.  From  9:30  a.  m.  to  7:30  p.  m.,  a  period  of  10  hours, 
the  average  flow  was  12,350  c.  f.  s.;  the  average  for  the  first  5  hours  was 
13,330  c.  f.  s.  and  for  the  maximum  hour  was  15,270  c.  f.  s.  The  river, 
continued  to  flow  into  the  lake  for  3  hours  after  the  big  flow  began  at 
the  Power  Plant.  The  10-hour  average  at  the  rate  of  12,350  c.  f.  s. 
included  a  large  volume  of  water  stored  in  the  canal  before  the  flow 
was  increased  at  9  a.  m.  From  7  to  9  a.  m.  the  canal  gauge  stood  about 
— 1.4  at  the  Power  Plant;  usually  this  gauge  reads  3  or  4  feet  below 
datum  during  this  period.  Much  of  this  early  surplus  water  may 
have  come  out  of  the  Sag-Channel  and  its  1.  &  M.  Canal  tributary, 
all  draining  an  area  of  more  than  100  square  miles.  Another  part 
may  have  come  from  the  large  sewers  of  the  S.  W.  Side.  It  takes  2 
hours  or  more  for  a  large  increase  in  flow  at  the  Power  Plant  to  begin 
to  show  on  the  Western  Ave.  gauge  and  conversely  flood  waters  from 
the  S.  W.  Side  would  not  begin  to  show  on  the  Power  Plant  gauge  in 
less  time.  With  an  average  velocity  of  3  feet  per  second  it  would  take 
nearly  15  hours  for  a  given  volume  of  flood  water  to  traverse  the  Canal 
from  Western  Ave.  to  the  Power  Plant.  The  additional  time  for  6 
miles  of  river  has  not  been  estimated;  at  the  same  rate  it  would  add 
about  3  hours. 

(10)  In  paragraph  (6)  it  was  stated  that  "under  present  working 
conditions  a  case  of  uniform  flow  does  not  occur  in  a  period  of  8  hours. 
Wrhen  the  heavy  lighting  load  goes  off  in  the  morning  the  canal  gauge 
at  the  Power  Plant  is  still  falling  about  half  a  foot  an  hour."  This  was 
true  during  the  night  of  August  8-9,  1923.  From  8:30  p.  m.  to  4  a.  m. 
the  water  surface  in  the  canal  at  the  Power  Plant  fell  from — 1.5  to 
— 6.75,  a  range  of  5.25  feet.  The  average  flow  as  indicated  by  16  half- 
hour  readings  was  at  the  rate  of  11,100  c.  f.  s.  The  average  flow  for 
24  hours  was  at  the  rate  of  7,930  c.  f.  s.  If  75,000,000  square  feet  of 
water  surface  fell  half  as  far  as  the  fall  on  the  canal  gauge  at  the  Power 

86 


Plant  the  displacement  was  at  the  rate  of  5,200  c.  f.  s.;  if  the  water 
surface  fell  1-3  as  far  the  rate  was  3,500  c.  f.  s.  In  other  words,  at 
4  a.  m.  August  9,  stored  water  was  running  off  at  the  rate  of  3,500  or 
5,200  c.  f.  s.  Because  the  center  of  area  is  more  than  half  way  up  the 
Channel  and  because  of  the  extra  slope  in  the  12-mile  reach  below  the 
Sag  Junction,  the  smaller  value  may  be  about  right  for  the  last  hour 
of  the  8-hour  night  run  August  8-9.  Without  a  series  of  gauge  readings 
at  critical  places  the  displacement  of  stored  water  cannot  be  estimated 
precisely. 

(11)  During  the  night  of  August  9-10,  1923,  from  8:30  p.  m.  to 
4:30  a.  m.  the  water  surface  in  the  canal  at  the  Power  Plant  fell  from 
— 3.1  to  — 7.3,  a  range  of  4.2  feet.  The  average  flow  as  indicated  by 
16  half-hour  readings  was  at  the  rate  of  10,900  c.  f.  s.  The  average 
flow  for  24  hours  was  at  the  rate  of  7,220  c.  f.  s.  The  canal  gauge 
from  1:30  to  4:30  a.  m.  was  falling  quite  uniformly  at  the  rate  of  1  foot 
in  3  hours  or  1-3  foot  per  hour.  If  75,000,000  square  feet  of  water 
surface  fell  1-6  foot,  the  displacement  was  at  the  rate  of  3,500  c.  f.  s.; 
and  if  it  fell  1-9  foot  the  rate  was  2,300  c.  f.  s.  As  before,  the  smaller 
value,  2,300  c.  f.  s.,  may  be  about  right  for  the  last  hour  of  the  8-hour 
night  run,  August  9-10.  The  corresponding  rate  the  night  before  was 
50  per  cent  larger,  but  there  was  more  stored  water  the  night  before. 
Incidentally  nearly  2  inches  of  rain  fell  on  August  6-7-8.  Variations  in 
lake  level  and  in  river  slope  may  have  been  factors.  With  so  many 
variables  it  is  useless  to  split  hairs  over  two  solitary  observations.  A 
long  series  would  be  more  conclusive.  But  it  is  very  evident  that 
stored  water  is  a  considerable  factor  under  present  conditions.  And 
it  takes  a  long  time  to  run  off  stored  water  when  a  storm  comes  with 
a  high  stage  in  the  canal.  In  the  meantime  sewage  water  may  be 
flowing  into  Lake  Michigan  as  was  the  case  for  at  least  6  hours  and 
probably  9  hours  following  the  storm  of  August  11,  1923. 

(11a)  It  should  be  added  that  during  the  first  3  or  4  hours  of  the 
usual  night  run  more  than  half  the  water  used  is  stored  water.  The 
flow  from  the  lake  begins  to  increase  not  less  than  3  hours  after  the 
large  increase  in  flow  begins  at  the  Power  Plant. 

(lib)  The  use  of  the  name  Power  Plant  in  this  discussion  indicates 
the  present  end  of  the  canal  and  should  not  give  undue  prominence 
to  the  incidental  by-product  of  a  great  work  which  ultimately  will 
cost  Chicago  more  than  $100, 000,000.  Contrary  to  the  assumptions 
of  certain  alien  critics  in  Canada  and  Wisconsin  the  Power  Plant  is 
not  an  institution  for  profit ;  it  is  a  liability  and  not  an  asset.  At  present 
most  of  the  power  is  consumed  in  lighting  the  streets  of  Chicago  at  a 
loss  to  the  Sanitary  District.     Ultimately  much  of  the  power  will  be 

87 


used  to  pump  water  and  sewage.  The  tax-payers  of  Chicago  will 
derive  whatever  benefits  may  flow  from  the  Power  Plant. 

(lie)  It  was  contrary  to  public  policy  to  permit  private  institutions 
for  profit  to  appropriate  this  water  power  which  they  had  done  nothing 
to  produce.  When  such  institutions  acquire  a  vested  interest  they 
may  interfere  with  the  original  design  and  subvert  a  public  work  to 
their  own  private  use  and  profit.  Such  was  the  Illinois  and  Michigan 
Canal  case  some  years  ago.  The  old  Lockport  mills  held  a  lease  for 
power  at  a  nominal  rate  ($4.00  per  horse  power  per  year)  from  the 
then  Illinois  and  Michigan  Canal  Commission  and  at  one  time  the 
Sanitary  District  and  later  the  Illinois  and  Michigan  Canal  Commission 
operated  the  Bridgeport  pumps  at  a  loss  to  maintain  the  mill  interest. 
Incidentally  the  Canal  Commission  paid  the  mill  people  more  for 
current  to  operate  the  pumps  than  they  got  back  on  the  lease,  to  say 
nothing  of  the  cost  of  maintaining  and  operating  the  Bridgeport  pumping 
station.  It  is  not  clear  who  paid  the  cost  of  the  transmission  line  from 
Joliet  to  Bridgeport.  At  that  time  a  Lockport  man,  the  late  Mr. 
Norton,  controlled  both  the  Lockport  mills  and  the  water  power  plant 
at  Dam  No.  1  in  Joliet. 

(lid)  During  this  period  some  speculators  pre-empted  a  mill  site 
on  the  river  just  below  Joliet  and  made  a  lot  of  trouble.  This  case 
was  in  the  courts  for  a  number  of  years.  Further  down  stream  we  had 
the  Dresden  Dam  case.  The  Marseilles  water  power  interests  have 
stood  in  the  way  of  the  State  canal  project.  Some  promoters  claimed 
a  power  site  near  Ottawa.  All  of  these  predatory  interests  claimed 
a  right  to  a  flow  which  they  did  not  produce  and  curiously  all  of  them 
had  standing  in  the  lower  courts.  About  25  or  30  years  ago  Gen. 
Doe  was  sent  by  the  War  Department  to  investigate  certain 
complications  in  the  Wisconsin-Fox  river  canal  case.  The  water  power 
interests  had  impaired  navigation  in  the  canal  and  there  were  other 
complications.  Other  cases  could  be  cited.  To  avoid  private  water 
power  entanglements  has  been  the  unwritten  policy  of  many  United 
States  Engineers  on  waterway  improvements  and  it  has  been  the  policy 
of  The  Sanitary  District  of  Chicago. 

(lie)  In  conclusion  it  should  be  stated  that  a  limited  flow  of 
4,167  c.  f.  s.  through  the  Sanitary  Canal  is  inimical  to  the  welfare  of 
Chicago;  that  Lake  Michigan  and  the  water  supply  of  Chicago  would 
be  polluted  by  sewage  many  times  every  year  as  outlined  in  this  report; 
that  oscillations  in  lake  level  would  cause  the  river  to  flow  back  into  the 
lake  at  intervals  during  dry  weather  periods;  that  during  storm  periods 
the  discharge  of  the  North  Branch  alone  at  times  may  equal  or  exceed 
the  limited  flow  of  4,167  c.  f.  s.;  that  for  a  time,  August  11,  1923,  the 
whole  flood  of  the  North  Branch  did  flow  into  Lake  Michigan  and  that 

88 


such  storms  are  not  of  rare  occurrence  as  stated  by  Mr.  Mitchell  of  the 
United  States  Weather  Bureau;  that  sewage  flowed  at^least  2  miles 
out  into  Lake  Michigan;  that  in  time  deposits  and  sedimentation 
would  produce  an  intolerable  nuisance,  and  would  impair  the  usefulness 
of  the  canal  for  commerce,  and  would  reduce  the  capacity  for  carrying 
stormwater;  that  the  combined  flood  capacity  of  the  Main  Channel 
and  the  Calumet-Sag  Channel  is  and  should  be  at  least  three  times  the 
limited  flow  of  4,167  c.  f.  s. 

(llf)  On  the  other  hand  with  a  normal  flow  of  10,000  c.  f.  s. 
through  the  Main  Channel  as  was  estimated  in  1887  when  the  Sanitary 
District  law  was  framed:  The  Main  Channel  was  originally  designed 
for  a  normal  capacity  of  10,000  c.  f.  s.  although  the  Boldenweck-Eckhart 
board  of  trustees  lost  sight  of  this  fact  when  they  applied  for  the  Federal 
permit.  This  capacity  was  adopted  to  avoid  the  necessity  of  building 
the  so-called  Bowmanville  Cut-off  designed  to  divert  the  flood  waters 
of  the  Des  Plaines  River  and  the  North  Branch  into  Lake  Michigan. 
A  by-pass  from  the  lake  to  the  river  south  of  16th  Street  was 
contemplated  but  was  not  built.  The  Main  Channel  was  to  begin  at 
the  west  end  of  this  by-pass  and  be  about  300  feet  wide  between  dock 
lines  so  that  ships  could  lie  by.  The  alternatives  of  heavy  work  in  the 
river  around  the  loop  area  and  high  velocities  in  the  river  were  to  be 
avoided.  The  water  section  of  this  by-pass  was  to  be  about  100x25 
feet  with  concrete  sides  and  invert  and  the  street  crossings  were  to  be 
level  and  full  width  with  parapet  sidewalls.  The  flow  through  the 
by-pass  was  to  be  controlled  by  headworks  and  the  velocity  through 
the  river  adjusted  to  suit  the  needs  of  navigation.  The  available 
slope  or  rate  through  the  by-pass  would  have  been  4  or  5  times  the 
river  slope,  with  equivalent  velocities,  but  by  closing  the  by-pass  at 
intervals  the  river  could  be  kept  free  of  deposits.  So  much  for  early 
history. 

(llg)  After  the  storm  of  August  11  an  average  flow  of  12,350  c.  f.  s. 
was  maintained  for  10  hours  at  the  Power  Plant  and  at  the  same  time  the 
main  river  flowed  into  the  lake  for  about  3  hours  and  was  practically 
at  a  stand  for  7  hours  more.  The  flow  from  the  Calumet-Sag  Channel 
has  not  been  estimated  but  it  is  assumed  that  at  least  10,000  c.  f.  s. 
was  carried  for  several  hours  by  the  Main  Channel  above  the  Sag 
Junction.  For  want  of  specific  data  the  complicated  relations  of 
tributary  waters  and  stored  waters  have  not  been  estimated  in  the 
South  Side  area  but  it  seems  clear  that  a  channel  capacity  of  less  than 
10,000  c.  f.  s.  would  be  inadequate.  It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that 
the  rainfall  of  2.68  inches  early  August  11,  1923  and  1.00  inch  more 
about  20  hours  later,  a  total  of  3.68  inches,  was  not  a  great  storm. 
Mr.  Mitchell  stated  that  the  Chicago  Weather  Bureau  records  "contain 

89 


a  large  number  of  instances  wherein  more  than  3  inches  fell  within 
24  hours."  During  the  month  of  August,  1885,  the  total  rainfall  was 
11.28  inches;  August  2-3  within  a  period  of  24  hours  the  rainfall  was 
6.19  inches.  This  historic  storm  caused  the  agitation  that  produced 
The  Sanitary  District  of  Chicago. 

(llh)  In  conclusion  it  should  be  stated  that  the  proposed  flow  of 
10,000  c.  f.  s.  is  not  for  the  benefit  of  Chicago  alone.  Compared  with 
conditions  before  the  canal  was  built  the  proposed  flow  will  improve 
navigation  in  the  Illinois  river  and  will  raise  the  low  water  stage  of  the 
Mississippi  River  about  one  and  one  half  feet  at  St.  Louis  and  benefit 
navigation  in  the  Mississippi  Valley.  It  will  be  a  self-sustaining 
benefit  and  will  improve  the  stability  of  the  lower  river  in  a  number 
of  critical  places  by  reducing  the  range  from  high  to  low  water.  And 
finally  the  larger  flow  is  an  important  factor  in  the  proposed  Lakes  to 
Gulf  waterway. 

Respectfully  submitted, 


6     .      X.      .^H^U. 


Hydraulic  Engineer. 


NOTES 

(12)  Mr.  John  Meyer,  engineer  of  the  tug  Arctic,  tied  up  all  day  at  the 
Goodrich  dock  east  of  Michigan  Avenue,  came  on  at  6  a.  m.,  August  11,  and 
observed  the  river  flowing  towards  the  lake  from  6  a.  m.  until  noon;  the  river 
stood  still  from  12  to  2  p.  m.  and  then  slowly  flowed  west.  The  water  was 
very  dirty  with  sewage  and  oil  on  the  surface  and  he  was  sure  that  the  oil  came 
out  of  the  North  Branch. 

(13)  When  Mr.  W.  R.  Matthews  of  the  City  Sewer  Department  crossed 
the  Washington  Street  bridge  about  8:30  a.  m.,  August  11,  he  observed  the  river 
at  a  stand.  At  that  time  all  of  the  sewage  flood  from  the  North  Branch  must 
have  been  discharging  through  the  main  river  into  Lake  Michigan. 

(14)  Mr.  Fred  E.  Delaney,  pilot  of  the  fire-boat  Graeme  Stewart  tied  up 
at  the  foot  of  LaSalle  Street,  came  on  watch  at  7  a.  m.,  August  11,  and  observed 
the  river  running  east  at  that  time.  At  11 :30  a.  m.  the  Str.  Iroquois  had  trouble 
landing  at  the  dock,  just  east  of  the  fire  boat.  Her  stern  would  not  swing 
around  against  the  east-bound  current  and  they  got  out  a  line  and  warped  the 
stern  in.     The  east-bound  current  continued  until  12:30  p.  m. 

(15)  Mr.  James  Hefferman,  chief  engineer  of  the  fireboat,  who  also  came 
on  watch  at  7  a.  m.,  August  11,  said  the  water  was  flowing  east  at  7  a.  m. — 
oil  and  sewage  and  refuse  on  the  water.  The  flow  continued  until  about 
3  p.  m.  when  the  water  came  to  a  standstill.  Evidently  Mr.  Hefferman  did 
not  see  the  change  after  12:30  p.  m.  observed  by  Mr.  Delaney. 

90 


(16)  Mr.  F.  Beaver,  bridge  operator,  south  end  of  Dearborn  Street  bridge, 
came  on  watch  at  8  a.  m.,  August  11,  and  saw  the  water  flowing  towards  the 
lake  all  the  time  up  to  12:30  p.  m.  He  did  not  notice  any  east  current  from 
12:30  to  3  p.  m.  Bill  Saville  was  on  watch  from  12  to  8  a.  m.,  August  11,  and 
is  now  on  vacation.  At  the  State  Street  bridge  the  man  in  the  south  tower 
was  a  substitute  for  a  man  on  vacation.  Mr.  Miracle  in  north  tower  did  not 
have  a  very  distinct  recollection  of  what  the  river  was  doing.  He  was  down 
below  pumping  out  the  sump  for  some  time. 

(17)  Mr.  Joseph  H.  Stoke  in  the  south  east  tower  of  the  Michigan  Avenue 
bridge  was  on  watch  from  8  a.  m.  to  4  p.  m.,  August  11,  and  noticed  the  river 
current  flowing  to  the  lake  when  he  came  on  watch  until  1 :30  p.  m.  At  ]  p.  m. 
he  noticed  a  slight  current  to  the  west.  The  water  was  covered  with  sewage  and 
oil.  Sunday  he  did  not  notice  any  current  towards  the  lake.  The  Customs  office 
clerk  in  the  south  west  tower  was  busy  on  his  books  and  did  not  notice  the  river. 
The  man  on  watch  in  the  Harbor  Master's  office  in  the  northeast  tower  confirmed 
the  usual  observations  from  8  a.  m.  to  12  noon;  after  that  he  did  not  notice  the 
river  so  much.  Mr.  R.  Emerick  in  the  northwest  tower  came  on  watch  at  8  a.  m., 
August  11,  and  thinks  the  current  was  towards  the  lake  all  day  August  11  and  12. 
At  8:15  a.  m.,  August  12,  a  man  on  the  Str.  City  of  Holland  swept  about  a  barrel 
of  waste  paper  into  the  river  and  the  paper  floated  slowly  east.  The  Holland 
was  at  the  Graham  and  Morton  dock  east  of  Wabash  Avenue.  It  should  be 
noticed  in  passing  that  an  oscillation  in  lake  level  due  to  the  high  wind  the  night 
before  may  have  caused  this  back  current.  The  time,  8:15  a.  m.,  August  12, 
does  not  check  with  time  given  in  paragraph  (23).  Emerick  may  have  confused 
the  City  of  Holland  with  some  other  boat. 

(18)  Capt.  Young  at  the  Tug  Office  about  half  a  mile  east  of  Michigan 
Avenue  confirmed  the  general  report  but  did  not  observe  the  water  very  closely. 
At  the  United  States  Lighthouse  Cottage  just  east  of  the  Tug  Office  the  man 
said  the  water  was  black  and  dirty  on  the  morning  of  August  12  and  appeared 
to  be  on  a  stand.  The  river  is  quite  wide  here  and  any  current  must  have  been 
comparatively  slow. 

(19)  Capt.  Daugherty  of  the  Str.  Iroquois  who  went  out  about  2  p.  m., 
August  11,  observed  much  dirty  water  in  the  outer  basin.  When  he  came  in 
about  10  a.  m.,  August  12,  he  saw  dirty  water  in  Lake  Michigan  half  way 
out  to  the  Carter  Harrison  crib  and  thought  it  came  out  of  the  river.  The 
Str.  Iroquois  makes  daily  trips  to  South  Haven,  Mich. 

(20)  At  the  Goodrich  Transit  Co.  dock  Capt.  Stuffiebeam,  Str.  Alabama, 
said  he  went  out  about  7:45  p.m.,  August  11,  and  observed  sewage  and  dirty 
water  extending  more  than  half  way  to  the  Carter  Harrison  crib;  they  ran 
through  it  for  5  minutes  and  it  takes  9  minutes  to  pass  the  crib.  When  he 
came  in  about  5  hours  earlier  he  noticed  the  black  water  about  the  same  place. 

(21)  Capt.  Moody,  Str.  Christopher  Columbus,  said  that  he  went  out 
about  10  a.  m.,  August  11,  and  noticed  a  lot  of  dirty  water  out  at  the  head  of 
the  pier.     His  boat  makes  daily  trips  to  Milwaukee. 

(22)  Capt.  Bjork,  Str.  City  of  Saugatuck,  landed  at  dock  about  3  a.  m., 
August  11.  The  river  was  running  towards  the  lake  at  that  time.  He  left  at 
1:30  p.  m.,  August  11 — current  towards  the  lake  or  at  a  stand?     This  report 

91 


indicates  that  the  river  was  flowing  towards  the  lake  2  or  3  hours  after  the  storm 
began,  depending  on  whether  the  Captain  was  using  standard  or  City  time. 
He  is  the  only  night  witness  interviewed. 

(23)  Capt.  McCaley,  Str.  City  of  Holland,  came  to  dock  at  6:50  p.  m., 
August  11;  current  to  lake.  Some  sewage  near  Life  Saving  Station.  Went 
out  11:30  p.  m.,  August  11,  current  running  to  lake.  The  writer  did  not  have 
time  to  complete  this  interview. 

(24)  Capt.  D.  A.  McDonald,  Str.  City  of  St.  Joseph,  came  to  dock  about 
4  a.  m.,  August  11;  water  at  standstill.  Went  out  2  p.*  m.,  Aug  11.  Saw 
sewage  along  the  Morton  Salt  Works.  The  Captain  did  not  remember  much 
detail  and  was  in  a  hurry. 

(25)  Mr.  Woerman  of  the  United  States  Engineer's  Office  observed,  at 
11:45  a.  m.,  August  11.  a  mass  of  sewage  inside  the  break- water.  He  also  saw 
traces  of  sewage  outside  the  break-water.  Mr.  Ramey  says  Mr.  Woerman 
has  more  information. 

(26)  Mr.  C.  S.  Rowe,  Engineer  Bridge  Construction,  City  of  Chicago,  ran  a 
surface  float  from  the  east  side  of  the  Clark  Street  bridge  in  center  of  south  draw 
to  the  east  side  of  the  Dearborn  Street  bridge.  The  distance  was  320+80  = 
400  feet  and  the  time  was  5  minutes,  from  10:15  to  10:20  a.  m.,  August  11, 
V  =400  -J- 5x60=  1.33  feet  per  second  to  east. 

(27)  Other  observations  were  made  as  follows: 

W.  M.  Trinkaus,    10:45  a.  m.,  surface  V  =  0.5  to  east. 
Mr.  Woerman,        11:45  a.  m.,  surface  V  =  0.33  to  east. 
W.  M.  Trinkaus,      1:15  p.  m.,  current  to  west. 

The  first  velocity  observation  at  10:20  a.  m.  (26)  indicates  a  flow  at  the  rate 
of  4,000  or  5,000  c.  f.  s.  into  Lake  Michigan  at  least  4  hours  after  John  Meyer 
(12)  observed  a  current  towards  the  lake  and  7  hours  after  Capt.  Bjork  (22) 
observed  a  flow  in  the  same  direction.  At  8:30  a.  m.,  Mr.  Matthews'  observa- 
tion (13)  indicates  that  all  the  sewage  flow  of  the  North  Branch  was  to  the  lake. 


Respectfully  submitted, 


S.  £.    G. 


Hydraulic  Engineer. 


92 


5-92 


